Author: David Dayen

Just now, at a Progressive Media summit (which I’m monitoring via the Twitter), Harry Reid acknowledged that changes would have to be made to the Senate filibuster rules in the next session.

That’s quite a reversal, actually. Reid recently scoffed that there was no chance to change Senate rules without 67 votes, a fact contradicted by history.

But Reid is simply riding the same wave of the entire Senate leadership, which is ingratiating themselves to newer members who want to see action on rules reform by testing competing policy measures:

Sens. Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer are each considering proposals to rein in the minority’s power to filibuster […]

Schumer (N.Y.), vice chairman of the Senate Democratic Conference, has told colleagues that he plans to hold hearings on reforming the filibuster at the Senate Rules Committee, which he chairs, according to Democratic sources.

“He’s told me informally that he’s going to have hearings on the history of the filibuster,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who is pushing a proposal to change the Senate rules with 51 votes at the start of the next Congress in January.

Schumer has tentatively scheduled his first hearing on the filibuster for March 24.

Durbin (Ill.), the Senate majority whip and Schumer’s possible rival for the Democratic leader position, has also reached out to freshman and sophomore Democrats behind the scenes to explore reforming the Senate rules.

“Everything’s on the table for discussion,” said Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who has been involved with Durbin’s working group.

You don’t have to be a genius to figure this one out. If Reid goes down in November, either Durbin or Schumer will lead the caucus. And they are each reaching out to junior members who are clamoring for rules reform. Whoever comes up with the best option wins the support of the rank and file. Reid, even if he wins, has to get out in front of this by going along.

Schumer actually has the upper hand here because he runs the Rules Committee through which any changes would come. Durbin has been more public in his support, because of Schumer’s inside track.

We’re getting close to a critical mass on this, provided that Democrats keep their Senate majority and hold enough seats to be able to push this without relying on the problem children of the caucus.

Tags: Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, filibuster, Harry Reid, Senate Rules Committee

 

While the primary challenge for Dennis Kucinich will not materialize, another challenge for a particular bete noire in the health care debate already has:

WASHINGTON – Michigan’s Bart Stupak, a Democratic congressman who could help bring down health care reform over an abortion provision, is getting a primary challenge this year.

Connie Saltonstall of Charlevoix said today she plans to run against Stupak for the Democratic nomination of Michigan’s First Congressional District, citing Stupak’s efforts to stop health care reform if it doesn’t ban use of government money for abortions. Stupak, a former state trooper from Menominee, has held the seat since 1993.

This year and last, Stupak has made a name for himself as a thorn in the side of some congressional Democrats pushing legislation for health care reform. While largely supportive of those efforts, he successfully attached an amendment last fall to ban use of federal funds to help pay for abortions.

“I believe that he has a right to his personal, religious views, but to deprive his constituents of needed health care reform because of those views is reprehensible,” Saltonstall said in a statement.

I actually get the sense that Stupak is losing some steam. The national media has begun to fact-check his claims about abortion funding, finding that they have little merit. The Senate bill simply does not directly subsidize abortions; in fact, it’s practically as restrictive as his own amendment. Stupak’s drive for his own language reflects personal vanity and a lust for power, more than anything. And he’s started to lose members of his coalition – fellow Michigander Dale Kildee backed off and now will vote for the bill (I’ll update the whip count later):

Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.), a key supporter of Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-Mich.) anti-abortion language intended for the health care bill, said Tuesday night that he’s satisfied the Senate abortion language prohibits federal funding of abortions and will likely vote for the bill.

“I think the Senate language keeps the purpose of the Hyde amendment,” Kildee told reporters. “I’ll probably vote for it.”

The primary challenge could squeeze Stupak even more, but the likeliest option would be to find the votes without him. I don’t know if that’s possible, but Kildee’s switched.

If “The Left” wants to really go after someone who’s done more than anybody to stop health care reform from passage, they’d start working for Connie Saltonstall. She’s a former county commissioner with electoral experience. And what’s more, she can pressure the actual source of the problem in the health care debate.

Tags: Bart Stupak, Connie Saltonstall, Dale Kildee, MI-01, Michigan, primaries

 

Last night, speaking for the entire institutional Left, Markos Moulitsas made a bold prediction about fellow denizen of The Left, Dennis Kucinich. Asked if Democrats should offer a primary challenge to the Ohio Democrat if he votes against the final health care bill, Markos said “I don’t think he gets a pass” and that his actions of making common cause with Republicans on the bill are a perfect excuse and rationale for a primary challenge. This set other members of The Left buzzing about this titanic struggle on The Left for the soul of the Democratic Party. What will happen? Who will win out? The Left or The Left?

There’s a tiny problem with all of this.

That would be the fact that Dennis Kucinich isn’t going to get a primary challenge this year.

Wanna know how I know?

Well, here’s the ballot, for one thing.

The Ohio primary takes place on May 4, and the filing deadline for candidates was February 18. Kucinich has no Democratic challenger, with three Republicans (including a guy named W. Benjamin Franklin!) vying to face him in November.

A salutary effect of the health care debate dragging out as long as it has – at least, salutary for incumbents – is that it has breezed past many filing deadlines for primaries in their states. Yesterday, Pennsylvania and Oregon joined eleven other states in reaching their deadlines; California and Nevada’s are at the end of this week, and by the end of March, 23 states will see the deadline pass.

In addition, as Markos well knows (and I don’t blame him for being baited into an answer about a primary challenge which is physically impossible; Lawrence O’Donnell needs a researcher) it’s pretty difficult putting together a primary challenge. I strongly support primaries for bad Democrats (I’m not saying Dennis Kucinich is one of them), but they take years of cultivation, knowing that they will have little or no institutional support, at least from national Democrats. In fact, they often take multiple cycles. Incumbents have money and usually a fair amount of local supporters. This enormous power on the part of “The Left” doesn’t really exist, at the level of being able to take out dozens of incumbents at a time. One or two at a time, maybe.

That’s especially true when labor, the one actor who can credibly raise the resources needed for a primary challenge, says “we’re going to take them out,” referring to members of Congress voting against the bill, when within two weeks, that will be physically impossible in 23 states. A smarter “Left” would already have had the challengers pre-positioned, would already have amplified the pressure, would already have made their intentions known at the time when it could actually be helpful.

At this point, well over half the incumbent Democrats in Congress know their circumstances for a primary with precision. And most of them will by default be the Democratic nominee in their respective districts. That doesn’t mean there’s no electoral leverage over them whatsoever, but idle threats about primaries just look silly.

“The Left” needs to get a bit smarter about this.

Tags: Democrats, Dennis Kucinich, Markos Moulitsas, OH-10, Ohio, primaries, the Left

 

Some changes from our last whip count Tuesday morning:

• I hadn’t noticed Health Shuler’s strong lean against reconciliation back in February. I’d like to see something updated, but he’s on the cusp of a no.

• Jim Marshall said Obama’s plan would bankrupt the country, so the former No vote looks like one again.

• Mike Arcuri said yet again today that he’d be a No this time around (he voted Yes last time). I’ve heard conflicting information here, but after a guy says no this many times, you start to believe him.

• Mike McMahon, from Staten Island, tells a local outlet that he’s a firm no vote.

• Ann Kirkpatrick’s not in the Stupak bloc, but her vote may be in play anyway (she voted Yes last time). Same with Dennis Cardoza.

• Having dealt with Steve Kagen in the past, I think there are as many outs in his statement as there were back in November. I’m not putting him in the count yet.

You add all this up and you get 192 Yes votes, 194 No votes, with the rest undecided. There has not been a lot of movement in the Yes direction, which is to be expected at this point, in the absence of a bill and of strong whipping from the leadership. 192 represents the baseline number of votes – which could go lower – and a target for the Democratic leadership. But I still find this exercise worthwhile for the same reasons as Steve Benen. The public simply has a right to know, even if these statements are dog whistles or negotiating ploys. Otherwise, constituents cannot react to what’s happening.

Also, I don’t just take public statements at face value, but try to get corroborating evidence, note public campaigns taken out for or against various lawmakers, and also where Obama’s barnstorming tour is headed – going to Northeast Ohio surely is a sign that Charlie Wilson’s vote is in play, for example. You can put all this together and come up with a reasonable snapshot of where the votes are, how many are needed, etc. Right now, it looks like Democrats would have to get every possible No-to-Yes flipper along with keeping every non-Stupak bloc wavering Yes vote in order to pass the bill without having to run the Stupak gauntlet. And that’s worthwhile information to know.

The full breakdown…

Definite YES:
192 Democrats.

Definite NO:
177 Republicans.

Definite NO:
17 Democrats.

16 Democrats who voted No in November:
Bobby Bright, Mike McIntyre, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Walt Minnick, Artur Davis, Chet Edwards, Frank Kratovil, Mike Ross, Dan Boren, Gene Taylor, Larry Kissell, Dennis Kucinich, Collin Peterson, Ike Skelton, Jim Marshall, Mike McMahon.

1 Democrat who voted Yes in November:
Mike Arcuri.

21 potential Democratic No-Yes flip votes

14 possible:
Jason Altmire, Bart Gordon, Glenn Nye, Brian Baird, John Tanner, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, John Boccieri, Suzanne Kosmas, Betsy Markey, John Adler, Scott Murphy, Lincoln Davis, Jim Matheson.

7 less possible:
Travis Childers, Harry Teague, Heath Shuler (severe lean no), John Barrow, Tim Holden, Charlie Melancon, Ben Chandler.

24 potential Yes-No flip votes:

11 Stupak bloc:
Bart Stupak, Jerry Costello, Charlie Wilson, Kathy Dahlkemper, Joe Donnelly, Joseph Cao (R), Steve Driehaus, Brad Ellsworth, Marion Berry, Marcy Kaptur, Dan Lipinski.

13 other wary Democrats:
Zack Space, Chris Carney, Mike Doyle, Paul Kanjorski, Ann Kirkpatrick, Alan Mollohan, Nick Rahall, Dan Maffei, Bill Owens, John Spratt, Dennis Cardoza, Dale Kildee, James Oberstar.

Tags: health care reform, Reconciliation, whip count

 

As you may know, FDL has launched the Students Not Banks campaign to get the student loan bill passed through reconciliation this year, enabling hundreds of thousands of students to afford college and ending the needless subsidies to the big banks for the privatization of the student loan market.

FDL campaigns get results! Already today, senior Democratic aides have proposed combining the student loan and the health care bills through reconciliation, the only way to pass SAFRA this year:

Senate Democratic leaders have decided to pair an overhaul of federal student lending with healthcare reform, according to a Democratic official familiar with negotiations.

“It’s going in,” said the Democratic source, in reference to the student lending measure.

But leaders may have to reverse themselves if they receive strong pushback from Democratic colleagues who represent states where lenders employ hundreds of constituents.

I’ve been working on this for most of the day, and aides aren’t really talking. But there are risks and rewards to tie in SAFRA with the reconciliation process.

First, some background, although I did go over this yesterday. SAFRA does not currently have 60 votes for passage in the Senate to clear the expected filibuster. Instructions were given last year to move SAFRA through the reconciliation process. However, you can only move one reconciliation bill a year, and the long wait on SAFRA was dictated by Senate leaders waiting to see if they needed reconciliation for health care. Now that reconciliation is the plan, the leadership has a choice: pass SAFRA tied in with health care, or basically wait another year, as higher education costs skyrocket and a major Obama Administration initiative goes by the boards. Adding to this decision is the fact that Democrats would want a tangible success for young voters, those most likely not to vote in the November midterms.

The leadership may see risks in adding student loan reform to the reconciliation bill, however. As The Hill notes, several Democrats who are likely votes for health care, particularly those in states like Delaware and Pennsylvania with a high concentration of the private student loan market, may back away from the reconciliation fixes if SAFRA gets attached. Would that be enough to sink the reconciliation bill entirely? Maybe not in the Senate, where Democrats can afford to lose 9 votes; an industry analyst only sees 7 no votes among the Democratic caucus. But in the House, where the whip count is tight, adding SAFRA could peel off needed votes.

I thought yesterday that, when push came to shove, Democratic leaders would drop SAFRA from their reconciliation plans if it threatened the health care bill. The newfound advocacy and activism around the bill will make that harder to do.

Tags: budget reconciliation, Health care, higher education, House of Representatives, Reconciliation, SAFRA, Senate, student loans, Students Not Banks

 

Blanche Lincoln, directly contradicting previous statements about using reconciliation to finish off the health care bill, pronounced herself open to the process yesterday.

A moderate Democrat who had vowed to oppose any effort by party leaders to push a health care bill through the Senate with a simple majority vote is rethinking her position.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln said Tuesday that she wants to see what is in the companion bill before deciding.

If I had to guess, I would say that Lincoln’s sudden need for support from current and former Presidents drove this change. But it’s not really crucial. Reconciliation is a measure that requires only 50 votes, and public whip counts show support at that level without Lincoln. The beauty of the reconciliation process is that ConservaDems like Lincoln become irrelevant, although the fixes on offer don’t really take advantage of that fact.

But clearly, Lincoln wouldn’t need to curry favor with those who could help her re-election in Arkansas without the presence of Bill Halter’s primary challenge. So despite her insistence that she doesn’t bend to the will of any party but the people of Arkansas, clearly by her actions Lincoln shows that to be false.

The New York Times ran a “Lincoln sits in the virtuous center” story yesterday.

Tags: AR-Sen, Bill Halter, Blanche Lincoln, budget reconciliation, Health care, primaries, Reconciliation

 

Some movement since I last updated:

Dan Maffei and Bill Owens, two central New York Congressmen who voted yes last time, are undecided.

Larry Kissell is a confirmed no.

According to the Hill, Marion Berry is a member of the Stupak 12 (which I have as a baker’s dozen), and Ike Skelton is a definite no.

So if you add all that up, you get 194 yes votes and 191 no votes. I’ll show my work:

I’m assuming that all Republicans save Joseph Cao are a no, and all Democrats who voted yes before who haven’t definitively come out as a maybe are still a yes.

There were 39 Democratic No votes before. One of them was Parker Griffith, now a Republican, and one of them was Eric Massa, now the saltiest salt not in Congress. In addition, three other Democrats who voted yes last time (Wexler, Murtha, and Abercrombie) have either resigned or died.

Of the 37 remaining Democratic No votes, we have 14 definite nos (I’ve documented all of these with a link somewhere on the site in the past):

Bobby Bright, Mike McIntyre, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Walt Minnick, Artur Davis, Chet Edwards, Frank Kratovil, Mike Ross, Dan Boren, Gene Taylor, Larry Kissell, Dennis Kucinich, Collin Peterson, Ike Skelton

That leaves 23 potential flippers, though only 13 have made noises in that direction so far:

Jason Altmire, Bart Gordon, Glenn Nye, Brian Baird, John Tanner, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, John Boccieri, Suzanne Kosmas, Betsy Markey, John Adler, Mike McMahon, Scott Murphy.

The other 10 haven’t said boo. They are:

Travis Childers, Harry Teague, Lincoln Davis, Heath Shuler, John Barrow, Jim Marshall, Tim Holden, Charlie Melancon, Jim Matheson, Ben Chandler

In addition, there are the Stupak 13, who were all yes votes last time:

Bart Stupak, Jerry Costello, Charlie Wilson, Kathy Dahlkemper, Joe Donnelly, Joseph Cao, Steve Driehaus, Brad Ellsworth, Marion Berry, Marcy Kaptur, Dale Kildee, Dan Lipinski, James Oberstar.

Kildee has said he’s not in the bloc, but he was quoted in the Politico “fix it in reconciliation” article as someone with concerns about the abortion language.

Then there are 10 other former Yes votes who have expressed concerns, though none are an out-and-out no yet:

Mike Arcuri, Zack Space, Chris Carney, Mike Doyle, Paul Kanjorski, Ann Kirkpatrick, Alan Mollohan, Nick Rahall, Dan Maffei, Bill Owens.

Some of those may have something to do with the abortion language, but I haven’t added them to the Stupak bloc yet.

If you add up those numbers, you get 194 confirmed yes, 191 confirmed no, with the rest in the middle. Obviously, this is fluid right now, especially in advance of actual bill language. But you can see why the leadership is still talking to Stupak. The votes are very hard to find without his bloc.

Tags: Bart Stupak, health care reform, whip count

 

Financial regulatory “reform” is beginning to look a lot like the status quo. We’ve already heard that the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency would be housed inside the Federal Reserve, which already held responsibility over consumer protection (and failed miserably at the task). Now the Financial Times reports that the Fed will also keep their supervision over the biggest banks, another area in which they failed but will face no diminution of power.

Chris Dodd … is set to propose this week that the 23 largest institutions stay under the Fed’s oversight … At issue … was the regulation of several hundred state chartered institutions that also want to remain under the Fed’s supervision.
…
“The Fed feels it is gaining some momentum,” said [an unidentified Senate aide].

As Yves Smith says, the Fed simply is not a functioning agency to check industry abuses. Heck, the largest banks pick their preferred officials for the top positions as the regional bank Presidents. “Keeping them in charge of bank regulation is like reappointing a fire commissioner who let half the town burn down,” she concludes.

The difference between countries who failed during the financial crisis and countries who kept their footing, when it comes down to it, is the presence of a strong regulatory framework, and also strong regulators who were not captured by the industries they were supposed to be regulating.

So what can we learn from the way Ireland had a U.S.-type financial crisis with very different institutions? Mainly, that we have to focus as much on the regulators as on the regulations. By all means, let’s limit both leverage and the use of securitization — which were part of what Canada did right. But such measures won’t matter unless they’re enforced by people who see it as their duty to say no to powerful bankers.

That’s why we need an independent agency protecting financial consumers — again, something Canada did right — rather than leaving the job to agencies that have other priorities. And beyond that, we need a sea change in attitudes, a recognition that letting bankers do what they want is a recipe for disaster. If that doesn’t happen, we will have failed to learn from recent history — and we’ll be doomed to repeat it.

Well, the unfolding nightmare of the Dodd draft indicates that we’ve failed to learn. His quest for bipartisanship rather than putting up a bill on which Republicans would have to make a choice, and then running on the outcome has led to a financial “reform” little changed from the structure that oversaw a massive collapse.

Tags: banking industry, CFPA, Chris Dodd, Federal Reserve Bank, financial industry, financial reform

 

Two things are holding up the passage of health care reform right now. One is the raw vote count in the House, particularly the Stupak bloc. The other is the procedural hurdle of which chamber votes first on what bill.

It seemed that this hurdle had been surmounted last week when House leaders agreed to pass the Senate bill first, then move to a reconciliation bill with agreed-upon fixes. When independent whip counts secured 50 votes in the Senate for a reconciliation sidecar bill, this paved the way for such an ordering. But liberals in the House simply don’t trust the Senate to follow through on any promise. They worry that they could pass the Senate bill, have that signed into law, and then wait endlessly for a reconciliation fix that never comes.

As a result, some members want greater guarantees that only a reform bill with all the sidecar provisions will make it into law.

House liberals want to tie a series of fixes to the Senate healthcare bill to a vote for the actual bill, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) suggested Monday.

Weiner, an informal leader of a bloc of House Democrats who have demanded changes to the Senate bill in exchange for the House passing it, said many Democrats want to tie the votes together out of a fear that the Senate may renege on passing a separate measure making changes to its original bill.

“We’re not just going to go ahead and hope for a package of improvements, we’re going to have to have something pretty much in hand, and there are many of us who are saying we want a vote on both things at once,” Weiner said Monday during an appearance on Fox News Radio.

The easiest way to ameliorate these concerns is for the reconciliation bill to pass both houses of Congress first. There are credible reasons, mainly related to CBO scoring, why that may not be a viable option. But the political reasons for waiting on passing the Senate bill are far greater, especially if the Weiner bloc cannot be moved to pass that bill blind.

The biggest problem here is that the reconciliation bills passed by the House and Senate are almost certain to differ, and setting up a conference report would subject the fixes to the filibuster that the reconciliation process was designed to circumvent. One way or another, the House will have to eat some bad provisions, unless the Senate installs major party discipline on everything not already worked out by agreement.

Tags: Anthony Weiner, Health care, House of Representatives, Reconciliation, Reconciliation sidecar, Senate

 

There was a lot of talk in the health care debate about Democratic politicians getting “special deals” for their states or key stakeholders in their states, and criticism that this is simply the most craven, low-down thing that has ever happened in American lawmaking. But of course politicians trying to do best for their states is not only expected, it’s the norm. In that light, we can see Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker going to bat for a major business in Tennessee.

Senator Bob Corker, who represents FedEx Corp.’s home state of Tennessee, said he will block legislation funding the Federal Aviation Administration because a provision may be added later making it easier for workers at the company to join unions.

Corker’s action extends a years-long fight in Washington between the mostly non-union FedEx and its unionized rival United Parcel Service Inc. over how workers at both companies should be treated under U.S. labor laws.

“We are supportive of the Senate FAA bill, but we have placed a hold until we can be assured that the controversial FedEx provision will not be included in the final legislation,” Laura Lefler Herzog, a spokeswoman for Corker, a Republican, said today in an e-mailed statement.

It’s openly stated that the FedEx wants to block unionization, and has their man in Washington, Corker, holding up bills in service to that. FedEx is among the largest employers in the state, and the world’s largest cargo airline. FedEx pilots already work under a union contract.

Mind you, Corker isn’t even holding the FAA funding over something IN the bill. He’s holding it because last year, the House passed a version of this funding that would have forced FedEx workers into the same labor standard as Teamsters-represented UPS employees, allowing their workers to join local unions rather than a national election.

FedEx spokesmen have taken to calling this a “UPS bailout,” but it would merely normalize labor law throughout the sector. FedEx is currently governed not under the National Labor Relations Act, like all other shipping companies, but the Railway Labor Act.

When such “special deals” were put in to placate Ben Nelson in the health care bill, remember, what got everyone up in arms was that he got substantial Medicare expansion funding for poor residents in his state. Corker and Alexander are just protecting the profits of a large Tennessee employer.

Somehow this gets viewed differently.

More at Think Progress.

Tags: Bob Corker, Federal Express, Lamar Alexander

 

Eric Massa hosted his weekly radio show on his last day as the Congressman and intimated that the Democratic Party pushed him out of his seat to pick up a vote on health care. He also detailed the charges against him and said he would perhaps rescind his resignation if the move to toss him from Congress became a “national story.”

You can listen to the audio at this link. Roll Call provided a rough transcript of Massa retelling the incident in question.

“On new Year’s Eve, I went to a staff party. It was actually a wedding for a staff member of mine; there were over 250 people there. I was with my wife. And in fact we had a great time. She got the stomach flu,” he said.

Massa explained that he then danced first with the bride, who was not identified, and then with a bridesmaid. He said multiple cameras recorded the incident.

“I said goodnight to the bridesmaid,” Massa continued. “I sat down at the table where my whole staff was, all of them by the way bachelors.”

“One of them looked at me and as they would do after, I don’t know, 15 gin and tonics, and goodness only knows how many bottles of champagne, a staff member made an intonation to me that maybe I should be chasing after the bridesmaid and his points were clear and his words were far more colorful than that,” Massa said. “And I grabbed the staff member sitting next to me and said, ‘Well, what I really ought to be doing is fracking you.’ And then [I] tossled the guy’s hair and left, went to my room, because I knew the party was getting to a point where it wasn’t right for me to be there. Now was that inappropriate of me? Absolutely. Am I guilty? Yes.”

Massa claimed that the staffer who reported the incident to the Ethics Committee was not the subject of the comment, but someone else at the table.

Massa later said that he hadn’t realized the mathematics of how his resignation would help get the health care bill passed until after his announcement on Friday afternoon. He said that “Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill, and this administration and this House leadership have said, quote unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they’ve gotten rid of me and it’ll pass.”

Well, if his was the deciding vote they wouldn’t be talking so intensely with Bart Stupak. Massa has the same inflated sense of self that all Congressmen presumably have. But the story is plausible and consistent with where this seemed to be going all along. I think the leadership had multiple reasons to dump Massa, primarily the appearance of taking control over a messy ethics probe. But the health care vote certainly didn’t hurt. If Massa were a committed “yes” maybe things play out differently.

Later in the show, Massa addressed events in his Navy career which a right-wing radio host blogged about, insisting they were misunderstandings. And he detailed a conversation with Rahm Emanuel after the climate change bill vote:

“When I voted against the cap and trade bill, the phone rang and it was the chief of staff to the president of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel, and he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn’t heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983,” Massa said. “And I gave it right back to him, in terms and words that I know are physically impossible.”

“If Rahm Emanuel wants to come after me, maybe he ought to hold himself to the same standards I’m holding myself to and he should resign,” Massa said.

Massa also accused Steny Hoyer of lying about the investigation when he said that he told Massa’s office to file the allegations with the Ethics Committee. “Steny Hoyer has never said a single word to me at all, never, not once. Never before in the history of the House of Representatives has a sitting leader of the Democratic Party discussed allegations of House investigations publicly, before findings of fact. Ever.”

Massa actually hinted that he could rescind his resignation, though he backed off on that statement later in the program.

I don’t know what the facts are, but certainly this re-opens a case that Democratic leaders probably wanted closed.

Tags: Democrats, Eric Massa, Health care, House Ethics Committee, Rahm Emanuel, Steny Hoyer

 

I wanted to delve deeper into the whip count on the health care bill, based on some newer information.

We know that all Republicans will vote against the bill; I think Joseph Cao is a lost cause no matter what happens on the Stupak amendment. This means that Nancy Pelosi can only afford to lose 38 Democrats to get a bare majority.

Here’s the list of the 39 Democrats who voted against the bill the first time around. One of them is now a Republican: Parker Griffith. Of the rest, several are confirmed no votes:

Bobby Bright, Mike McIntyre, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Walt Minnick, Chet Edwards, Frank Kratovil, Dan Boren, Gene Taylor, Dennis Kucinich, Collin Peterson.

I think those votes are pretty firm, leaving about 28 no votes, at most, out there to flip. You would have to offset any yes votes that flip to no this time around, which could include 11 House Democrats from the Stupak 12, as well as Mike Arcuri and any other Democrat wavering now.

Where from the 28 no votes can they come from? There are four House retirements among those 28: Brian Baird, Bart Gordon, John Tanner, and now Eric Massa (3 of these 4 are possible; I think Massa is actually a stretch). Gordon made some favorable noises about voting for health care reform today:

“Throughout the debate over the past year, I’ve said any responsible health care bill must do two things: reduce overall health care spending and increase access to affordable care,” Mr. Gordon said in the statement. “I voted against the House bill in November because it expanded coverage but did not do enough to bring down costs. I’m pleased to see the discussion moving in a more fiscally responsible direction now.”

I would say that Scott Murphy is a likely yes, because he’ll need national support in his re-election campaign, and because he signed on to the public option letter passed around by Chellie Pingree and Jared Polis earlier this year.

Others who were singled out in that AP story about whip counts, or who have made some positive noises on their own, include:

Jason Altmire (PA); Rick Boucher (VA); Allen Boyd (FL); Suzanne Kosmas (FL); Betsy Markey (CO); Mike McMahon (NY); Glenn Nye (VA), Mike Ross (AR).

There are some other undecideds, like Tim Holden.

You can see why Pelosi and House leaders are talking to Stupak. There are simply no more than a handful of no votes even considering flipping to yes, and possibly not enough to offset the Stupak bloc.

Tags: Bart Stupak, health care reform, House of Representatives, whip counts

 

Here’s an amazing little article from Politico.

The Roman Catholic bishops signaled Thursday that if agreement is reached with House leaders on anti-abortion language, the church would work to get the votes needed to protect the provisions in the Senate — and thereby advance the shared goal with Democrats of health care reform.

What are they talking about? Well, the bishops want the Stupak amendment, which would effectively end coverage of abortion services in all insurance markets over time.

Never mind that the federal government already subsidizes abortions through the employer deduction for coverage that almost always includes reproductive choice. Never mind that the Nelson compromise in the Senate bill would probably do exactly what the Stupak amendment does, because the requirement of two separate payments – one for your health insurance and one for the portion that covers abortion services – “would be cumbersome for insurers and objectionable to customers.” Never mind that Linda Blumberg, a health policy analyst for the Urban Institute, said that “There will not be abortion coverage in the exchanges. There just won’t be.” Never mind that the design of two separate payments singles out insurers who offer abortion coverage, opening them up to anti-choice protests. Never mind that under the bill, employer-based coverage is meant to move to the exchanges over time, as the eligibility for the exchanges expand, meaning that this restriction in the individual and small-group markets will eventually be brought to everyone. And never mind even that Ben Nelson, who authored the Senate version, “tried to figure out language that would be as close to Stupak as you could be without repeating the language,” according to his spokesman.

No, the Catholic bishops want to show a measure of dominance over the US government, and they want their way on this. And they have convinced Stupak to reject the “third bill” strategy, which House leaders offered to him.

What they want to do is to put the changes to the abortion language in a reconciliation sidecar bill, the second bill. This ensures that it will get passed as part of the package, since the President and Senate leaders have already promised that the sidecar will become part of the agreement.

But wait, you say. Reconciliation is intended only for budget-related items. How could the Stupak amendment language on abortion survive the inevitable point of order on the Byrd rule? Well, the bishops want to break that rule, and get 60 votes from the Senate to waive the point of order.

“We would strongly urge everyone, Democratic and Republican, to vote to waive the point of order,” Richard Doerflinger, an associate director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told POLITICO. “Whether it would be enough to get to 60 votes, I can’t predict. We would certainly try.”

“I think it’s something we should explore,” said Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.), a longtime opponent of abortion. “It could be something that could carry out the bishops’ objective.”

Essentially, the bishops would opt to try and change the reconciliation process and the Byrd rule to accommodate their restrictions of women’s choice. And they would threaten all Senators, Republican or Democrat, who didn’t vote their way, to break the rules.

Those are the words of a group that considers themselves more powerful than the government, and I suppose with good reason.

Now, I have no idea why they would think that Republicans in the Senate would vote affirmatively to untangle the only remaining piece between the Democrats and a health care bill. But, they cite as evidence of their power the initial vote on the Stupak amendment in the House in November, which every Republican voted for.

The precedent of waiving the reconciliation point of order whenever the mood strikes would be potentially powerful for essentially ending the filibuster. But my suspicion is that, if it comes to this, waiving the rules to make allowances for the Catholic bishops to crusade against women would be seen as a one-time deal. “We HAD to do that,” you see, and it’s not applicable to anything, you know, progressive.

If this actually happens – and if Pelosi has no other options to find the votes, I’ve little doubt that she’d at least explore it – you’ve basically ended the separation between church and state in this country.

Tags: abortion, Bart Stupak, budget reconciliation, Catholic Church, Health care, Senate

 

Via Greg Sargent, the Senate’s most committed civil libertarian, Russ Feingold, calls on the President not to give in to Republican fearmongering and to hold the KSM trial as scheduled, in an Article III court:

“We have a great track record of successfully trying and convicting terrorists in civilian courts. The military commission system is largely untested, and these cases could easily get bogged down in years of legal challenges. The best way to bring these terrorists to justice swiftly is through our civilian courts.”

There is so much clear evidence supporting Feingold’s statement, many of which has been USED by Justice Department officials and their allies, including the Attorney General. If the Administration turns their back on all of this, “cowardly” would be the most charitable description.

As Sargent notes, only Feingold is out with a statement on the Washington Post report today. Dianne Feinstein and Patrick Leahy, who have publicly urged a criminal trial in the recent past, have said nothing today. The relative timidity of virtually the entire Democratic establishment in the face of baseless and hypocritical Republican attacks laid the ground for this reversal. They still have a victim’s mentality on national security issues.

Tags: Article III, Barack Obama, civil liberties, civilian court, criminal justice, Democrats, Dianne Feinstein, Greg Sargent, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, military commissions, national security, Patrick Leahy, Russ Feingold, The Plumline, WhoRunsGov

 

About the only encouraging moments during the years-long budget disaster here in California has been the increasing campus radicalization against the draconian cuts to public education. For years now, students have sat on the front lines of the budget debate, with schools an inviting target for budget cutters and back-door taxes in the form of fee increases a preferred solution. The most recent 30% fee hike at the UC university system was something of a last straw. California, once a higher education model for the nation to follow, has seen that sadly pass. And the students want it back.

Yesterday, across all the UC campuses, students protested the cuts and demanded action on coming to grips with both the budget and the political crisis in Sacramento.

Several hundred students, faculty and staff rallied at the University of California at Berkeley, the 1960s hub of Vietnam war protests. Yoga students there held classes outside to avoid crossing picket lines.

A UC Santa Cruz radio broadcast advised the public to avoid that campus after protesters blocked a traffic entrance.

Robert Cruickshank, in a moving post at Calitics, explains this correctly as a reaction to the deliberate destruction of public education in the state. Congressman (and former Lt. Governor) John Garamendi explained it to me several months ago as a “decision, and it was a decision, not to invest in education. We have plenty of money to fund it, but we made the decision not to. The leadership has refused to use that wealth in the greatest resource we have, and that’s our education system.”

This decision to mortgage the future of students because the wealthy don’t want to give up their tax advantages has manifested itself in anger across campus. Cruickshank, who participated in protests in Monterey, explains it as part of a continuum of de-emphasizing education:

Students now understand what is happening to them and why. Their education is being gutted and their already meager financial resources are being stolen from them by a state government that believes corporations matter more than students. That propping up the failed status quo matters more than building California’s future. Most of the speakers I heard understood this very clearly, almost instinctively. It has been beaten into them these last two years.

In my own brief remarks to the rally at CSUMB, I noted that we had all been here before. In the late 1960s students protested against Governor Ronald Reagan’s fee hikes, but they happened anyway. In the early 1980s students protested against Governor Jerry Brown’s and Governor George Deukmejian’s fee hikes, but they happened anyway. In the early 1990s students protested against Governor Pete Wilson’s fee hikes, but they happened anyway. In the early 2000s students protested against Governor Gray Davis’s and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s fee hikes, but they happened anyway.

It is time to break that cycle with action.

The core goal for colleges and universities should be to restore the core pledge of the 1960 Master Plan – that a high quality public college education will be free to all Californians who qualify for it. The core goal for K-12 schools should be similar, that a high-quality public education will be free to all Californians, period. In pursuit of that goal, the movement must be willing to pursue actions and policy changes that will provide the new public funding that a restoration of truly affordable and quality public education requires.

There are campaigns at the state and national level to break this cycle. The Courage Campaign, where Cruickshank is a policy director, has joined the effort to finally have California tax the oil coming out of the ground (this is the only state in America without an oil severance tax) and funnel that money into higher education. Another national initiative would be to pass student loan reform, end the mass subsidies going to banks to manage federally-backed loans, take the savings from distributing government loan directly and transfer it into Pell Grants that would allow hundreds of thousands of students to better afford college. “Second Lady” and community college educator Jill Biden argued for that at the White House web site today.

Finally, putting the states on sound fiscal footing after the Great Recession eroded the tax base would help as well. California received, by some counts, $85 billion dollars through a variety of stimulus programs, and yet the budget shortfalls remain, creating a drag on economic recovery. Arnold Schwarzenegger likes to tout the stimulus in Washington while cutting education funding at home, canceling out the stimulative effects. This cannot happen anymore, and while the $25 billion in Medicaid help in the next Senate jobs bill would provide some relief to state budgets, it does not fill what is by some accounts a $140 billion dollar gap.

Overall, students are tired of being considered what amounts to second-class economic citizens, with their futures on the chopping block whenever the economy takes a downward turn. California’s budget problems are byzantine in their complexity, but in a broad sense it comes down to priorities, and students over the last several years have been put in the back of the line. Their willingness to stand up and protest this action is perhaps the one shining by-product of this sad time in the state’s history. Real activism and engagement from the bottom up can save the state, if channeled properly.

Tags: California, education, fee hikes, protest rally, student loans, tuition hikes

 

The Hotline is reporting that Eric Massa will resign on Monday, and cites House Democrats “pressuring” him to leave Congress.

Massa has been pressured by House Dems to step aside amid an ethics controversy that caused him to announce earlier this week he would not run for a second term.

There’s an open investigation in the Ethics Committee of allegations by a junior staffer against Massa, but to date, the only organization willing to report that as sexual harrassment has been Politico. They’ve started to get around to naming their sources, albeit with one degree of separation, but Massa’s Chief of Staff offered his side of the story to a local TV reporter. Mind you this is the only direct source with knowledge of the situation on the record:

As to Rep. Massa’s Health: This is why he announced today that he’s not seeking re-election. Racalto tells me he picked Massa up from the hospital in December, the morning of his cancer exam; as you may know, he’s survived cancer once already in this life. There were abnormal blood conditions during that physical and there is/was a threat to his health. Racalto says that since then Massa’s schedule has been cleared at certain times, most recently last week, so he and his family can discuss what course of action should be taken. “He is retiring for health reasons,” Racalto said. “The reality is he’s sick.”

Racalto tells me the conversation kept coming back to a simple question: “At what cost do you want to remain a Congressman?” In the end, the answer often included a desire to see his two children graduate college. (A son attends Syracuse University; a daughter is at Big East Rival Georgetown.) […]

Various reports swirling seem to reference the sources as “aides from both sides of the aisle” to which Racalto wonders, who? Interns? Ex-employees? Staffers from some other Representative’s office? Who is not speaking up as a named source? Personally, I’m sure we’re all wondering to some degree where these unnamed sources are coming from… most especially in light of what we’re seeing unfold in Albany with Governor David Paterson and a month’s worth of rumors and reports. But to this point Racalto tells me he and Rep. Massa are actually looking forward to responding to whatever complaint or allegation may or may not exist. “Just tell me what I’m fighting,” Racalto said.

Left with little knowledge of any actual allegation (so says Racalto), Rep. Massa sort of assumed it must be related to “salty” language – which he made reference to in his announcement Wednesday. “We’re talking about a Navy guy, he uses salty language,” Racalto said. Racalto also added that there have been other complaints in the office related to language used by Rep. Massa and other staffers.

To the specific reports circulating about harassment allegations, be them sexual in nature or not depending on the report you read, Racalto had this to say: “I can confirm my sitting staff has not contacted them (Ethics Committee)…I can confirm to the best of my knowledge that the harassment charges are unfounded.”

Take that for what it’s worth. I know Politico has no monopoly on the truth in this case and has been peddling a mess of innuendo.

Understand that there are multiple reasons for House Democrats to force Massa out at this stage. First there’s the desire to look tough on ethics allegations and wash their hands of any impropriety. The second reason would be the raw politics of the health care vote. Massa voted against the bill last time, and certainly sounded like a no on this one, as of a couple weeks ago. What’s more, Nathan Deal sticking around for the vote changed the threshold back to 217; if Massa resigned, that would return back to 216.

A resignation would not confirm rumors unless Massa confirms them; it just means that the House leadership has begun to play hardball on a couple different fronts.

UPDATE: This looks to be confirmed.

UPDATE II: To be clear, I simply don’t think we know the nature of the allegations, and the resignation will not be determinative, because there are other underlying factors associated with leadership forcing him out of the seat. Jeff Zeleny lumping in Massa as part of a spate of “scandals” without actually saying a thing about the nature of the scandal reflects the irresponsibility going on here on the part of the media. If they know something, they ought to say it.

Tags: Congress, Democrats, Eric Massa, ethics, Health care, NY-29

 

The Washington Post seems pretty convinced that President Obama will accept the recommendation of top national security advisers and back down on a civilian trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The president’s advisers feel increasingly hemmed in by bipartisan opposition to a federal trial in New York and demands, mainly from Republicans, that Mohammed and his accused co-conspirators remain under military jurisdiction, officials said. While Obama has favored trying some terrorism suspects in civilian courts as a symbol of U.S. commitment to the rule of law, critics have said military tribunals are the appropriate venue for those accused of attacking the United States.

If Obama accepts the likely recommendation of his advisers, the White House may be able to secure from Congress the funding and legal authority it needs to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and replace it with a facility within the United States. The administration has failed to meet a self-imposed one-year deadline to close Guantanamo.

The administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said the president’s legal advisers are finalizing their review of the cases of Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators. Asked about the process, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that “no decisions have been made.”

You can compromise on funding this or that domestic policy. But here we have a compromise on the rule of law, an ethical impossibility. The Cheney family talked enough trash and questioned enough patriotism to actually get the President to potentially step away from the criminal justice system? We’re running trials based on polls now?

Of course, like most things, Obama comes to this debate having already compromised. His Justice Department selected trial venues – or the lack thereof – based on the admissible evidence available on the suspect. The A tier (with clearly enough evidence to convict) got a criminal trial, the B tier (with less evidence) a military commission, the C tier (not enough evidence) got to stay at Guantanamo or Guantanamo North or wherever indefinitely. It’s hard to talk about principles and justice when you’ve already sold it out.

Nevertheless, giving up on the KSM trial would represent a triumph of politics over principle. Lindsey Graham has been reportedly negotiating with Rahm Emanuel over some “Grand Bargain” where KSM gets a military commission in exchange for funding to close Gitmo. It will be amusing to watch Graham unable to sway a single Republican once this exchange is made, and then have Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman or Jim Webb be the stumbling block for the plan. And needless to say, this switch won’t end the endless cycle of fear propagated by the slime merchants on the right. A President committed to closing Gitmo and using Article III courts could have stuck the funding in a must-pass bill, ignored the critics and refused to play this game.

Spencer notes that Eric Holder has actually ramped UP his defense of the KSM trial in recent weeks, and convincingly so:

“If Giuliani was still the U.S. Attorney in New York, my guess is that, by now, I would already have gotten ten phone calls from him telling me why these cases needed to be tried not only in civilian court but at Foley Square,” Holder told The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, adding that he was “distressed” that people “who know better” were demagogically and speciously claiming civilian courts are incapable of trying terrorists. As the fight over the KSM trial — no longer hypothetical after New York rejected holding it at the Foley Square courthouse — intensified, so did Holder, putting up webpages touting the courts’ superior record of convicting terrorists. Sensing the heat from conservatives, Obama’s other senior aides followed suit. John Brennan, the White House counterterrorism chief, noted in USA Today that “there have been three convictions of terrorists in the military tribunal system since 9/11, and hundreds in the criminal justice system,” a point Vice President Biden amplified on the Sunday chat shows. Defense Secretary Robert Gates backed Holder in a letter to Congress last week, and his defense budget request put the money for closing Guantanamo Bay and moving terrorists to the U.S. — the only substantive congressional hurdle for any trials, military or civilian — in the Afghanistan war funding request, the most politically unstoppable budget line the government has.

All of these maneuvers – for nothing?

[Ed. Note: Spencer has his own special take:

What Obama will actually gain by siding with Emanuel and Graham over his national-security team and his law-enforcement team is, to say the least, less than clear. . . .

The pattern couldn’t be clearer. Every time Obama compromises on a matter of national-security and civil-liberties principle, his GOP opponents raise the pressure to get him to bend further. His compromises earn him no good will. He is being, simply, punked.

Attackerman has more.]

Tags: civil liberties, conservative noise machine, criminal justice, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, military commission

 

You could just see this one coming today: faced with a difficult vote count without a bloc of anti-choice Democrats on board, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer expressed an openness to a standalone vote, essentially a third bill, on Bart Stupak’s abortion amendment, as a condition of his support for health care reform.

Stupak has re-entered negotiations with Democratic leadership, and this evening, emerging from a meeting with Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer indicated one possible way forward.

“Separate pieces of legislation could be passed that would relate to that,” Hoyer said in response to a question from TPMDC. “That’s a possibility. I talked to Mr. Stupak today, and I’m going to be talking to him next week and he indicated he wanted to have some discussions with people. And I will do that.”

House leaders do not have the option of changing the language in the Senate health care bill related to abortion funding, because it would probably not make it past the Byrd rule in the reconciliation process. Therefore, the only way to change the bill to Stupak’s satisfaction would be to give him a separate vote – a piece of legislation banning abortion services coverage in the exchanges.

The House’s other option is to pass the bill over the objection of Stupak and his co-horts. Stupak says he has twelve votes; Chris Bowers puts the number between 6 and 17 (I think it’s credible to suggest that members of Congress not with Stupak on all his test votes before could be with him now, because the stakes are different and the abortion issue is one they could bring to their constituents, to say they “got” something to stay on the bill). Whatever the number, any defections from yes votes at this stage would have to be matched with flipping people who voted against the House bill last time. The leadership doesn’t appear to have had much success in that effort yet, although at least a few are open to changing their vote. John Boccieri is the latest.

“After reviewing the President’s health care proposal and watching portions of his bipartisan health care summit, I’m encouraged the proposal contains important provisions to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse and reduce the deficit. I am hopeful that going forward from last week’s summit with bipartisan ideas, we can finally move toward providing affordable, quality coverage for everyone.”

But the fact that Hoyer is floating a separate vote does indicate that the leadership is having trouble matching Stupak’s numbers. And that raises a whole host of questions. . . .:

1) Would the President agree to delay signing of the final bill until the Stupak standalone bill gets a vote? Presumably Stupak would want such a guarantee.

2) Similarly, would the Senate be bound by such an agreement to put the amendment up to a standalone vote? Or is this just a House deal?

3) If the vote fails in either the House or the Senate, would that be it for health reform? Is this a promise of a future vote rather than a promise not to sign health care into law unless this passes?

4) What would Republicans do, in both the House and the Senate? In the House, all of them fell in line and agreed to the amendment back in November. In the Senate, all but Collins and Snowe agreed on the vote, which ultimately failed. But if health care rides on Republicans taking this vote, would they vote for it themselves, or would they rather put pro-choice Democrats in the excruciating position of having to vote for an abortion coverage ban in order to get health care through?

5) If Republicans refuse to play along, would Democrats whip the vote?

Expect answers to these questions in the next couple of days.

UPDATE: Just one other thing on this: how come 12 Democrats can force a standalone vote taking away reproductive rights, but 12, or 20, or 100-plus at last count, cannot force a vote on the public option, with the same tactic? Because one group is credibly willing to walk away from the table and ditch health care altogether, while the other is not.

Tags: abortion, Bart Stupak, health care reform, Max Baucus, Pitts-Stupak Amendment, public option, reproductive rights, Steny Hoyer, Stupak Amendment, whip count

 

People still have a problem being truthful about what’s stopping the House from passing a health care bill tomorrow. House liberals have brooked every compromise, made every harsh vote, lost virtually every big fight, and still backed the bill. Raul Grijalva, who just, um, a day ago talked about leaning no on the final passage, heard enough happy talk from Barack Obama to flip right back to support today. That was never, ever in doubt. They’ll accept the assurance from the President that he will sign the Senate bill and the reconciliation sidecar in tandem, and that’s that. They don’t need much convincing.

The hurdle to this approach remains Blue Dogs and the Stupak 12, and if the House doesn’t meet their deadline, that’s the reason, pure and simple. Diana DeGette may be confident that Bart Stupak and his anti-choicers can’t kill the bill, but he’s certainly confident that he does, to the extent that he’s proclaiming that House leaders “don’t have 10 votes for the Senate bill.”

The return of Nathan Deal into the mix means one more vote will be required for passage, and the pool of those who voted no the first time who could be flipped to yes just got smaller today, as Stephanie Herseth Sandlin pronounced herself a no.

The South Dakota Democrat confirmed during a telephone conference call with reporters that she won’t vote for the Senate version of health-care reform, just as she didn’t vote for an earlier version approved by the House of Representatives.

As for an additional piece of legislation being developed by President Barack Obama to answer some concerns about the existing Senate bill, Herseth Sandlin said she won’t vote for that if it comes to the House by way of the reconciliation process in the Senate.

“I will not vote for the Senate bill as is,” she said. “I will not vote for a package of changes that would go through the reconciliation process.”

Stupak is reportedly negotiating on something with House leaders, which may be the “third bill” strategy, a standalone vote on his amendment attached to the overall bill, which must pass as a condition of his bloc’s support. Failing that – and that would be an extremely hard sell – House leaders would basically have to run the table on potential flippers.

Liberals are really not a part of that discussion. It’s about the Stupak 12 and Blue Dogs.

Tags: abortion, Barack Obama, Bart Stupak, Blue Dogs, Health care, House of Representatives, Raul Grijalva, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

 

It took five attempts – the committee seemed to always run out of time, or lose a quorum – but today the Senate finally approved the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel. Johnsen, an Indiana University law professor who was critical of the Bush Administration’s terror policies, was already approved by the committee last year, but her nomination never came to a vote in the Senate. In fact, the Senate returned the nomination to the White House at the end of last year, only to have the White House re-submit her nomination for the position.

There does not currently seem to be the kind of support needed for Johnsen to overcome an expected filibuster. Republican Richard Lugar of Johnsen’s home state of Indiana supports her, but Ben Nelson, citing her views on abortion (which have absolutely nothing to do with the Office of Legal Counsel), opposes. And thus she only has a sure 59 votes, which of course in America is not enough for the President to get his choice of staffer.

In a statement, Executive VP of People for the American Way, Marge Baker, noted that senior officials from multiple past Administrations have endorsed Johnsen, and that she deserves an up or down vote:

“More than a year into his presidency, Republicans are still slow-walking President Obama’s nominees for executive agencies. Instead of participating in the business of governing, the GOP is attempting to cripple this administration no matter what the cost. This unprecedented level of obstruction is unwarranted, and, especially in the case of office as crucial as the OLC, utterly unacceptable.

“As Senator Leahy urged, after a year of petty political delays Republican Senators should allow a simple up or down vote on this nominee. The country deserves no less.”

With a recess for Easter and Passover expected at the end of the month, the possibility also exists for a recess appointment.

Tags: appointments, Dawn Johnsen, obstructionism, recess appointments