GOP Continues To Say, "It's My Way Or No Way!"

On Face the Nation on Sunday Feb. 1, Mitch McConnell says the GOP is going to require sixty votes for the stimulus bill to pass, but doesn't want to call it a filibuster.

Since the Democrats always allowed cloture votes (stealth filibusters) and never actually made Republicans stand on the Senate floor and publicly filibuster in front of the Senate cameras in the 110th congress, McConnell's "sixty vote" statement is not surprising.

Transcript:

Schieffer: If it came to it, would Republicans filibuster this bill if it was not to your liking?

McConnell: Well that term is thrown around a lot. In the Senate it routinely takes sixty votes to do almost everything. It doesn't necessarily mean you're trying to slow a bill down. But a super-majority is required for virtually everything in the Senate and certainly for something close to a trillion dollars for a spending bill, it will.

It certainly did not routinely takes sixty votes to do almost everything in the Senate during the years Republicans were in the majority and controlled Senate business.

Both Texas’ senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) and John Cornyn (R) have voiced their staunch opposition to Obama's $819 billion stimulus plan. “I read the bill in vain for any real stimulus in the economy,” Cornyn told the Dallas Morning News. Senator Hutchison told the Plano Chamber of Commerce that she could not support President Barack Obama's proposed $825 billion non-stimulus package at a Jan. 23rd luncheon meeting. Both Texas’ senators are positioned to filibuster Obama's economic stimulus package. Hutchison, Cornyn and Republicans as a whole ignor the CBO's report that says 78% of the Stimulus Bill will hit the economy over two years.

Remember when Republicans controlled the U.S. Senate they accused Democrats of being obstructionists for just mentioning the word "filibuster" in response to Republicans pushing very partisan legislation through congress during the Bush Administration years? Ranking Republicans in the G.O.P controlled U.S. Senate, threatened the "nuclear option," against Democrats, which would have eliminated filibustering from congressional rules leaving Democrats with no voice in the Senate - period. The threat worked - Senate Democrats dropped their talk of filibuster allowing Republicans to pass very partisan legislation and confirm extreme right-wing judges, effectively unopposed. Ultimately, this left Democrats with no voice in the Republican controlled Senate anyway!

Republicans were singing a different tune after they became the minority party in the 110th Congress. The number of cloture votes (stealth filibusters) forced by Senate minority Republicans skyrocketed in the 110th Congress following the Democratic takeover of the Senate in Jan. 2007.

So, before Republicans were for using the filibuster, they were against it - A clear flip flop!

The Senate voted on 112 cloture vote motions (stealth filibusters) in the 110th congress controlled by Democrats, exactly double the number (56) of cloture votes in the 109th Congress, when Democrats were in the minority and Republicans were in control. The 110th congress cloture motions were two-and-a-half times as many as the average number of cloture votes (44) over the previous nine Congresses. Of these cloture motions, 51 were rejected, meaning that Republicans succeeded in filibustering an up-or-down vote because at least 41 Republican Senators merely said they would vote against ending debate to allow a floor vote. On the 61 cloture votes to ending debate that passed, defeating the stealth filibuster, Republicans at the very least successfully stalled for time.

With the Republican minority numbers slipping to just 41 Senators for the 111th Congress (assuming Al Franken D-MN is seated) Republicans seem prepared to use the threat of filibuster (cloture vote motions) to stall legislative business. Republicans forced the legislative pendulum to the far right during the Bush years and they are determined to do everything possible to keep it there.

Should the Democrats Change the Senate Filibuster Rule to make it more difficult for Republicans to stall Senate business in the 111t h congress as they did in the 110th congress?

Ms. Magid Goes To Washingtion

By Linda Magid

I worked on a local Democratic campaign here in Texas last election. My candidate lost, but Obama won. I was so thrilled that I committed to going to the Inauguration and raised money to do it. Here is my account of my trip. Enjoy living the moment again - victory is sweet, ain’t it?

I arrived on Sunday and my girlfriend, Mary, picking me up. I wish I had gotten in earlier and attended the concert on The National Mall - that was definitely the mood I was in. Dancing, hollering, hugging strangers…a party. Not that I had much choice about it. I wouldn’t realize until the actual Inauguration how serious the ceremony is. Mary, James and I had dinner and then they put their two girls to bed. I sat in the kitchen and read emails, surfed the web. It was so nice to spend an entire evening with nothing to do. In those quiet moments, the word “vacation” came to mind. “So this is what a vacation is like!” I thought.

I made plans with Caroline, my other friends from college who lives in the D.C. area, for the next day and went to bed. Caroline met me in Adams Morgan for a day of MLK Day events.

We picked a walking tour called “From Slavery to Freedom,” teaching us about the history of slavery in D.C. through the man who owned the land and his slaves.

It seemed very loosely structured at first - anyone who knew anything about history of the area could come up and talk. This freestyle lecture style was the only thing “loosey goosey” about the event.

The level of research this group conducted was outstanding. It really made me feel so far from any kind of academia. We got a list of the entire family of slaves associated with the land and how much the owner was paid after emancipation (a law was set in D.C. to pay the slave owners once slaves were emancipated). This information is almost 150 years old! Ends up that this whole walking tour is meant to build awareness about important landmarks in Adams Morgan that the citizens are fighting the government to save, like a cemetery with 7,000 graves that is now a city park. Of course, I gave to the cause.

Once that was done, Caroline and I went to eat lunch and found a delightful Turkish restaurant.

(But not before running across this funny poster and a cool kiosk).

The Turkish restaurant was very swank, not kitsch, and had awesome food. I love cities!

After lunch, we headed to the National Cathedral for an MLK Day concert. This is the cathedral where MLK jr. gave his last sermon before going to Memphis, where he was assassinated. A rapper was the MC (lead us in a vicious rap, too. It was great!), we heard three spoken-word poets, a sixteen year old hip-hop violinists and a hip-hop choir. The crowd was dancing, singing, celebrating. A couple of times I wanted to burst into tears from joy, but I felt embarrassed. It would have been the kind of sobbing that you do with your face in your hands. I couldn’t allow myself to do it, though.

The concert lasted 2 hours. Caroline and I were pretty spent so we grabbed some coffee before heading back home. I used her phone to call Mary and check in when I got the news: Mary got a new ticket in the purple section so I got her ticket in the silver area!! I was holding out for a miracle and it happened. This meant that I would be in a secure area with a controlled number of people. That night Mary and I picked up the tickets (given to us by her friend, the Chief of Staff for a North Dakota Representative), and mine looked more like an invitation - including an official seal. I had a chance to thank our benefactor in person - he didn’t think it was such a big deal, but he works in D.C. He didn’t realize I was representing all of you as well!

At 4:45am on January 20th, I arose and got ready for our day. Mary and I caught the 5:30am commuter train, which was not at all crowded. This train has fewer stops and you have to take the exact train on your ticket.

I got off at L’Enfant Station, which was closest to the Silver ticket gate, and Mary moved on to her stop near the Purple ticket gate. Here’s a photo of the dark streets, blocked off from all traffic except for buses and emergency vehicles.

(I found out later that the parking lot of Metro station near Mary’s house was already full by 5am.)

People were everywhere. I knew that 2 million were coming but I couldn’t imagine what 2 million people looked like up close. It looked like a mob scene.

Eventually I found the Silver ticket line and met up with three college women. We stuck together the whole time, linking arms as we weaved through the crowd. Our line wasn’t much of a line, as you can see in the photo.

10,000 people were given silver tickets. I didn’t want to believe it when I was told, but the number of people rushing toward the gate gave me a wake up call. Our little group moved through security and ran into the open area where we planted ourselves. It was 8:30am.

I was in the back part of the Silver area, but once they opened up the gate to let more people in front, our group made a run for it.

That is how we got close to the reflecting pool. It is funny because we moved around a lot, trying to get a decent view of the capitol bldg while also being able to see a jumbotron screen.

That is why that tree is blocking the building in the photo and also how we ended up surrounded by a seriously raucous group. (The second photo below is a close up view of the capitol steps blocked by the tree.)

They knew who everyone on the screen was. . .

When Joe Lieberman come up on the screen we booed. When Ted Kennedy came up on the screen, we cheered and chanted his name. Judge Thomas got booed, and someone yelled, “Hold on, everybody. We still got Scalia!” and people cracked up. It was like being in the Coliseum!

We cheered for all of the Democratic Presidents, of course Clinton getting most of the love.

We sang, “Hey, Hey, Good-bye” when Cheney showed up in his wheelchair, and I admit I sang it loudly. (Some might say that is disrespectful, and, well, I have to say I agree. Which, basically, is why I did it.)

As you all know, when the Obama family was shown, the crowd went wild. When Obama himself was on the screen, when he walked out of the Capitol building, we went out of our minds. We all laughed at the Oath Gaffe because we thought he messed it up due to the sound delay. And when the Oath was done, the crowd simply erupted. For days I was waiting to weep but when the time came we all just screamed our heads off. I hugged everyone in the area. It was pure joy. I stayed for the rest of the Inauguration but it was hard to hear because people were leaving.

When it was done, I moved along with the crowd back to the edge of the Mall, and in a final moment of victory, I got to see George Bush ride off to Texas in his helicopter. We waved and sang that same “Goodbye” song with great satisfaction.

The moment went quickly, that public acknowledgment of Obama becoming our President. I wish we could have had a band there to dance in the streets. Instead 2 million people wandered the streets near the Capitol Building looking for food and a place to warm up. It got a little scary when I didn’t think we would find either but eventually Mary and I got our bearings straight and got what we needed.

People were generally helpful but certainly everyone was taxed. I saw several people who needed medical attention (and got it) and the police walked through a building calling out for a missing 9 year old girl (don’t know if or when they found her). The city wasn’t prepared for us as evidenced by the garbage all over the city - not all of it was simply dropped in carelessness. They didn’t have enough garbage cans. That was sad. However, we waited in line patiently and made room on the floor to rest. We smiled at each other knowing that we shared a special moment together even though we are strangers.

And when 5:15 came, Mary and I made our way back to our train and rode home tired, chilled and gratified. Our country did the right thing and we were there to witness it.

Linda Magid was Tom Daley's campaign manager when he opposed incumbent Sam Johnson in the 2008 election for the Texas 3rd Congressional District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The New Communications Channel For Politics

TWITTER comes to DC

There have been a few of times in American history when forces align to create an explosion of political innovation and transformational change. In these periods the politics of the older era quickly breaks down and a new mode of politics quickly emerges as Americans of that era step up and rise to the occasion.

Obama's campaign solidified an era of new politics that is based on the new technologies of the internet and the new media of the web to activate a new era of progressive constituencies like the young Millennial Generation.

In parallel with, or perhaps because of the Obama campaign, the internet emerged in 2008 as the leading source for news, surpassing all other media except television as the preferred communication channel, according to a Pew Center research report released on December 23, 2008.

The Pew Center survey found that for the first time more people rely on the internet (40%) than newspapers (35%) for news among all age groups. Television continues to be cited most frequently as a main source for among all age groups, but for young people the internet now rivals even television as a main source of all news. Nearly six-in-ten Americans younger than 30 (59%) say they get most of their national and international news online. This mirrors a trend seen throughout 2008 in campaign news consumption.

In an October 2008 Pew Center survey the percent of people who say they look to the internet for their political campaign news tripled among all age groups from 10% in October 2004 to 33% in October 2008. Among younger Americans ages 18 to 29, however, more people (49%) mention the internet as mention newspapers (17%) as a main source of election news. Nearly half of all Americans (46 percent) say they regularly received news about political campaigns, share political views or mobilize others to action using the internet and cell-phone text messaging.

Further, substantial numbers of those younger than age 30, particularly those ages 18-24, say they received campaign and candidate information from social networking sites such as MySpace and FaceBook during 2008. This age demographic also heavily relied on online video streaming and video posting sites to watch campaign debates, speeches and commercials. Over half of people under age 30 watched at least one form of campaign video online during 2008.

In this video Peter Leyden from the Next Agenda project gives a talk to the staff at YouTube on the technology-driven paradigm shift that is transforming politics in the 21st Century. If you have an hour, the video is well worth the watch.

Why People Don't Vote Down Ballot

This country saw a huge increase in voter registration this year, and even bigger increases among younger voters, people of color, non-college voters, as well as college students, and unmarried women. These groups of newly registered voters are politically progressive and disproportionately Democratic. The problem progressives faced in 2008, just as in prior election years, is that not all of this energy was transferred to down ballot races.

A recent EMILY's List survey conducted by Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group shows that 65 percent of younger people believe whoever is elected President will make "a lot of difference" in their lives; this number drops to 32 when asked about Governor and 26 percent when asked about Congress.

Nationally, approximately 15 percent of voters fail to complete their ballot. In recent research, GQR looked at drop-off ballot voters, voters who indicated they may not finish the ballot. They accounted for 13 percent of the electorate, but this number increased sharply among younger voters, African Americans, lower income, and less educated voters. In fact, 59 percent were either Democratic or lean-Democratic voters. What this means is that from one-fifth to one-quarter of the most progressive voters regularly do not mark their down ballot races. This is a problem that Democratic Candidates face in Collin County as well as nationally.

Here is the EMILY's List study report:

In order to understand why voters drop-off, and also to test possible messages to encourage down ballot voting, EMILY's List commissioned two pairs of focus groups among newly registered voters in North Carolina. These groups included African American and Caucasian young people who were screened to only include those who registered to vote this year and identified as either Democrats or Obama voters. As is always the case with focus group research, the results are qualitative and not statistically significant. Nonetheless, the results, in concert with other quantitative data, provide real learning on how to engage newly energized voters to vote down ballot. In this research, EMILY's List measured the potential impact of various approaches to encourage down ballot voting including (1) linking other candidates to Obama, selling them on the notion that every leader needs a "team" behind him, (2) probing their support for straight party ticket voting, and (3) exploring more comparative approaches where the message attacked Bush and his down ballot allies and remind these voters that Bush may be gone, but his ideas and policies could outlive his administration. Generally speaking, this messaging was tested as potential Internet and television ads, rather than a message battery, an approach that better reflects how voters experience political messaging in the real-world. The study used story-boards rather than fully produced advertising. Main Findings Disengagement with the down ballot among some voters is real. These young people impressed us with their ability to recall very specific details about Barack Obama and his plans for the country. For example, several participants could recite his plan for dealing with student debt and his plans for the economy, energy and education. They knew all about his background and all of them watched the convention speech. But they knew almost nothing about candidates running for other offices. Less than half could identify who was running for Senator and Governor; fewer knew who was a Democrat and who was a Republican. Most details on what issues and themes the statewide candidates advocate in their campaigns were lost on them entirely. What is striking about this outcome is that several of these candidates have been up on television for several weeks prior to these groups. People resist the idea of casting an uninformed vote. Consistent with other research that we have conducted among young people and other under-represented groups, such as unmarried women, the disincentive to vote down ballot is less about "my vote won't matter" or "this office does not matter," than the concern they will vote for the "wrong" candidate. It may not be enough, even for these strong Democratic and pro-Obama groups, to simply know the party label of down ballot candidates. Importantly, their threshold for "knowing" a candidate was fairly modest. One participant recalled walking into the polling station during the primary and talking to a candidate running for school board. This woman noted only that she was a teacher. For this young person, that was enough and she completed the primary ballot. Straight party ticket voting is not attractive for many in the groups. In some states, one obvious solution to the down ballot problem is "pulling the party lever." However, young people in both groups resisted the straight-ticket option emphatically. It violated their own sense of autonomy and would mean voting for someone they do not know anything about, which is the reason why they resist voting down ballot in the first place. Young people do understand that the other offices are important and have a greater direct impact on their lives. However, this is not a top-of-mind perception among many participants in our groups. As noted above, they know almost nothing about other candidates running for statewide office. When reminded of the importance of some of these other offices, not only to a would-be Obama administration, but also to their own lives, there is a bit of an "oh yeah" moment. This is something that needs to be reinforced. Young people understand implicitly that Barack Obama needs a "team" and needs allies down ballot to change the country. To state the obvious, transferring top-of-the-ticket energy down ballot should involve specific references to the Democratic nominee. In stopping drop-off among progressive targets, candidates need to be linked to Obama. The concept of a "team" is powerful, but it is also important to understand that this is not simply about partisanship. For many newly registered voters, electing a "Democratic team" is less appealing than electing a team that will address their issues and concerns. There are some risks associated with using the Obama brand. These risks emerged in reactions to some of the advertising where young people found the linkage to Obama either disrespectful in some cases or irrelevant in others. Obama's standing as the head of the ticket needs to be respected. In one treatment, the ad asked young people to vote for the candidate for senator, governor and then, President. Participants noted the order and found it off-putting that Obama was identified last. The link between Obama and down ballot candidates needs to be explicit. One treatment began with an image of Obama, but the copy and rest of the ad focused more on down ballot candidates. Some in the groups accused the ad of a "bait and switch," enticing them to look at an "Obama" ad that was really about other candidates. Also, reflecting the Obama campaigns field efforts, the Obama image and likeness is ubiquitous in the lives of young people and people of color. This is particularly true online. Many say they get an e-mail from the Obama campaign or one of his allies just about every day. While the image and standing of this nominee represents a very strong brand, it is also a bit over-exposed. As is obvious for anyone dealing with many new registrants and newly energized voters, reaching these voters is very difficult. They are less likely to watch network television, do not really read their mail and one quarter of young people do not have a land-line telephone. Unmarried women are more likely to move. People of color are less likely to have a consumer history that puts them on consumer lists. The media environment is also noisy and crowded. Young people in particular live under a riot of stimuli from television, the Internet, PDA's and cell phones. They are online all day, rely on texting to communicate with their friends and spend hours on social networking sites. This leaves the Internet as the best option for reaching many of these voters, but progressives need to understand its limitations. Almost everyone in the groups belongs to a social networking site, mostly "Facebook," and "MySpace," but they tend to ignore ads on the sites. Only a handful ever recall clicking on an ad or even seeing an ad on a social networking site. Most of these ads, they say, are about mortgages and dating sites that do not have anything to do with them. There is no perfect solution to reaching some of these voters. It will likely require some combination of television and Internet advertising. In terms of message, there are approaches in the groups that worked well and others that did not work well. What Worked Speaking to the issues and priorities of newly energized voters. Republicans who complain about the "celebrity" appeal of Barack Obama just do not get it. Many voters, of course, are drawn to Obama's sweeping language, his history and powerful oratory, and what his election means for this country socially. In the end, however, he also speaks to their issue concerns. Young people are consumed with their acute economic vulnerability. In a recent (August) Greenberg Quinlan Rosner/Democracy Corps survey of young people, we found that 80 percent described paying off their debts as a very important goal in their lives, a higher number than getting married, having children or even getting a good job. Polling shows similarly acute economic anxiety among unmarried women and people of color, as well as college students, who will have degrees and debt, but limited job aspects. This research suggests that the approach needs to be substantive. Among the most successful treatments tested in the groups was an ad called "Challenges" where young people in the ad recounted some of the issues they were facing and the plans of Obama and down ballot candidates for addressing those issues. Using images that remind people of themselves. Young people are drawn to images of other young people -- people who look like them, not the traditional image of older politicians or older voters. One of the most successful images was an young woman with an American flag in the background. This treatment was used in a separate test where we asked participants which ad they would most likely click on after being shown several difference images. In contrast, another ad poked fun at the older (conservative) generation ("Stick it to the Man"); the groups liked this message, but many admitted they were unlikely to click on an ad featuring an older bald man that is "probably trying to sell me a mortgage." Empower people to research down ballot candidates. In testing spots, young people like to see spots that featured web sites they could to go to learn more, though this is not just about going to the campaign websites or other partisan sources. Rather it is about Wikipedia and "youtubing" and other "independent" sources of information. In testing materials for registration efforts among other groups, we have similarly seen positive reactions to efforts making it easier for voters to learn more. The young people in the groups demonstrated considerable skills at researching candidates online. Moreover, in terms of language, they use the word "research" intentionally, rather than "learning about" or "educating themselves." What Worked Less Well Avoid approaches that are overly cute. Voters are in a serious mood and believe this is a historic election. Approaches that seem too trite fall short. One ad that we had high hopes for featured a decked out Duke University fan and a decked on University of North Carolina fan. (While they "disagreed on lot of things, they agreed on the importance of coming together and voting for Democratic candidates. . . ") Young people understood the concept, but found the analogy of a sports rivalry to this historic election somewhat inappropriate. At this same time, avoid images that are visually boring. The most important test of any outreach here is simply getting noticed. Advertising that looks flat on the screen will not get noticed. For people of color, avoid race-specific appeals. In one of the more striking findings of the groups, African American young people resisted treatments that seemed "too black" to them. In fact, some of these treatments offended them. They much preferred treatments that showed a diversity of voices, Caucasian, Hispanic and African American young people talking about common problems and common solutions. This finding goes to the heart of what Obama represents for people of color. While these young people convey obvious pride in the Obama's accomplishment, for many young people, Obama represents a celebration of the diversity of America. He is not their presidential candidate, but our presidential candidate. The young people in the groups spoke, often quite movingly and in considerable detail, about what Barack Obama could do for "my country."

Why do a third of Americans fail to vote? The answer, says Pennsylvania State political scientist Eric Plutzer, may stem from habit: If people don't start voting as young adults, they may never get comfortable doing so. Conversely, if people start voting young they likely remain habitual voters for live - a good omen for the Democratic party after Obama motivated so many young people to vote in the 2008 election cycle.

About 30 percent of adults are habitual voters according to Plutzer. Plutzer says, "They vote in presidential elections, midterm elections, school board elections. They vote even when elections are not expected to be close." A second group—some 35 percent of us—are registered to vote. These "periodic voters" generally vote in presidential elections but may not hit the polls for other elections. A third group, also about 35 percent of adults, aren't registered to vote. Says Plutzer, "Most young citizens aged eighteen to thirty fall into the unregistered group." Using data from several dozen nationwide voting surveys, Plutzer has tried to figure out why some young adults mature into habitual voters, others become periodic voters, and some never develop the voting habit at all. "Young Americans may relocate for college, their first job, or their first mature love interest," Plutzer notes. "When young people move into an apartment, they make sure they have electricity, phone and internet service, and cable. Registering to vote isn't at the top of their to-do list. "For many, voting is an unfamiliar task: They don't know where the polling place is, they may have no idea who represents them in the state legislature, and they're unlikely to have strong feelings about local issues such as school taxes or zoning." Voting for the first time may loom as an unpleasant experience. "They imagine they'll walk out of the voting booth bewildered as to whether they've cast intelligent votes for county sheriff, state representative—even U.S. senator." Low civic involvement among younger Americans isn't new. A presidential commission appointed by John F. Kennedy discovered that young citizens registered a disturbingly low turnout rate during the 1960 election. "That generation is now mostly retired," notes Plutzer, "and they show a high voter turnout rate today." In the same way, today's civically detached generation probably will "make the transition from abstainers to habitual voters," Plutzer says. His research has focused on factors that help speed up or delay that transition. The single most important factor is coming from a politically active family. Says Plutzer, "If your parents are habitual voters, the chances of you voting before age twenty-five are much higher." Other factors include attending college ("College graduates are better able to absorb and understand political information, link it to their own values, and come to believe their vote can make a difference") and living in a stimulating political environment. Research by Penn State graduate student Julie Pacheco has found that young people in highly competitive, "battleground" communities or states tend to vote earlier in their lives. "They're exposed to many political stimuli," says Plutzer, "and are more likely to be personally contacted by a political organization." Unfortunately, the number of battleground states has dwindled as our nation has become increasingly politically polarized and as partisan gerrymandering of Congressional districts has reduced the number of competitive elections for the U.S. House of Representatives. "If young adults don't see their votes as meaningful," Plutzer says, "they're much less likely to vote." Plutzer concludes that people learn about the political world "by participating, not reading." Simply bombarding young adults with information won't throw the switch. Says Plutzer, "The informational approach is like telling my six-year-old daughter that she shouldn't play baseball until she understands the 'infield fly rule.' But if she goes ahead and participates in baseball, she'll gradually learn the rules, the terminology, even the trivia. "It's the same with politics. Convince a young citizen to vote, and he or she will read the newspaper differently, recognize the names of people on the ballot when they're mentioned on television or by a neighbor, and eventually become highly informed. Get them to the polls once, and they will likely vote again and again."