U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 03, 2010 06:50 PM UTC

A Bridge Too Far?

  • 66 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Denver Post columnist Mike Littwin has some thoughts on the recent surprising turn of events in Washington, starring one Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky–an incident that could have far-reaching repercussions. How much did his overplayed hand change the game?

I don’t know what the Democrats did to deserve Jim Bunning, but I hope they’re grateful.

It’s not just any U.S. senator who would be willing to single-handedly shine a light on Washington dysfunction by single-handedly bringing Congress to a standstill.

It’s not just any U.S. senator who would have dared – with his lone vote – to block extending unemployment payments during a recession, to furlough transportation workers during a recession, to block COBRA payments during (did I mention?) a recession, to cut Medicare payments to doctors during the big health care fight…

It seems many people were confused about how the Democrats were having so much trouble governing with a 60-40 Senate majority. And they were still confused about it when the Democrats lost the Scott Brown decision and had to settle for a 59-41 majority. But Bunning has suddenly made the math all too clear.

In the United States Senate, we now understand, even a 99-1 majority doesn’t always work.

For days, until Bunning finally relented Tuesday night, the senator from Kentucky was able to use his one, lone vote to prevent a “unanimous consent” motion from passing – a motion that would have extended unemployment benefits.

He didn’t do this once. He objected 11 times, which may be – Elias is still checking – a modern-day record. The Republicans have already set a record for using the filibuster. You can see a trend here.

…It’s a tough road, but Bunning just made it that much easier. Meanwhile, Sen. Michael Bennet, in some fortuitous timing, will offer a bill today to change some of the Senate’s more arcane rules. He wants changes on anonymous holds, on earmarks and, of course, on filibusters.

You couldn’t pick a better time to call for Washington reforms. But if you’re completely in charge, as the Democrats have been, it’s hard to blame anyone else for not getting things done. Then along comes Bunning, who made his one-person stand for what’s wrong with Washington.

Democrats have been trying ever since Barack Obama’s inauguration to portray the Republicans as the obstructionist “Party of No,” but even as the GOP minority set records for blocking nominees and forcing 60-vote votes, it’s a narrative that has failed to gain traction. Democrats have lost standing while Republicans have ruthlessly pressed the classic two-pronged strategy of blocking everything, by any means necessary, and blaming their opponents for the resulting ‘inaction.’ It’s very similar to the tactics used by the GOP minority leading up to the 1994 midterm elections, when they took over Congress on a wave of carefully managed popular anger.

But by so visibly exposing the middle-finger (in this case literally) obstruction necessary to make it all work, there’s this new and interesting possibility that Sen. Bunning has blown it for them.

Tweet
Share

Comments

66 thoughts on “A Bridge Too Far?”

  2. Nice try, but it wasn’t overreach.  He’s just trying to follow the President’s direction.

    The only overreach is on the left side of the aisle, starting with the stimulus, and continuing through today with reconciliation on a health plan that the public doesn’t want, augmented with a public option.

      1. Bunning has plenty of support on this.  All he was asking for was an explanation of how we were going to pay for this “jobs” bill that’s been a total disaster for the Dems.

            1. Seems like he might be holding Republicans accountable to their rhetoric. Oh wait, “Reagan showed that deficits don’t matter”.

              never mind.

            2. for the Sr. Sen’s past transgression (against Sen. Loony Tunes).  I am from Kentucky.  My family, my friends, my acquaintances back there all think Bunning is an embarrassment.  When your other Sen. is that idiot McConnell that really says something about how far afield Bunning is.  In KY everyone I know thinks he’s a complete loon.

            3. Because he wanted to oppose the President and the D’s at every step.

              Watch- later this year the R campaign claim will start to be louder and louder that the D’s can’t govern, nothnig gets done, it’s all one big overreach, nothing gets done.

              It won’t matter what has been done, it will speak to the Bunning supporters that Washington is bad because they don’t do anytihng, and if they do it’s bad.

              It’s a bad idea, but it’s what he’s thinking and why he voted no on Pay-go.

        2. GWB didn’t mind the spending. Cheney didn’t mind the spending – and cited Reagan. Congresscritters of both parties didn’t mind the spending. This wasn’t a close vote: they were striving for unanimity. It doesn’t get any more bipartisan that that, does it?

          So, no matter how reasonable you try to make Bunning’s motives sound (he just wanted an explanation), the fact is that this shows how a single obstructionist can stop the federal government.

          Once again, we see how Repubs can play hardball, but Dems are expected to play nice and roll over at the first Repub resistance.

          And I seem to recall that it was Repubs that pulled the plug on Pay-Go, both now (after they friggin’ sponsored the thing) and in the past (“Reagan showed that deficits don’t matter”).

            2. Bunning is grandstanding. You yourself said that he merely wanted an explanation. He wasn’t actually insisting that programs be cut to pay for this legislation.

              You do a good job of lobbing rhetorical bombs, LB, but what would you do?

              Stop these payments?

              No stimulus?

              No bank bailout?

              just curious.

              1. Stimulus should not have been a payback to the public employee unions.  I would have had much more infrastructure, and a two-year suspension of capital gains and a cut to payroll tax.

                Bank bailout was necessary.  Nasty but necessary.

                No bailout/takeover of GM.  No bailout of Chrysler.

                The jobs bill Bunning was jacking with is only 10 billion.  Find the money (from the stimulus, maybe) and pay for it.

                2. payroll taxes were cut.

                  But why would you suspend cap gains?  I work for an hourly wage, I pay taxes.

                  My wealthy neighbor can shift all his income to cap gains- and he pays nothing?

                    1. actually creating new business and hiring new employees.

                      Oh wait, the D’s did that.

                      By the way- if you cut “cap gains” now to try and help now, it doesn’t work. Cap gains require an investment be held at least 12 months.  So cutting cap gains cuoldhelp for investmetns 12+ months from now – but maybe you meant suspend for 24 months, starting 12 months from now.

                    5. We’ve all seen how the first thing the wealthy do is rush out and invest in creating jobs. Basically the elite pees all over the people who work for paychecks, plays hostile takeover/break up money shuffling games, exports jobs to the lowest bidder, kills unions, turns once proud occupations that used to pay a working man well into burger flipper wage jobs and calls it trickle down. It was voodoo when George Sr. called it voodoo and he’s been proven perfectly correct about that ever since, including right now, today.  Don’t pee on me and tell me it’s golden trickle down.

                    7. eeeewwww is exactly what I think of what your increasingly greedy, amoral GOP has been doing to my country ever since Reagan. If it hadn’t been for the relief we got during the Clinton administration, the opportunity to do great for eight years, I don’t know where my family would be right now.

                      At least we had something built up so we do didn’t start losing from the level we would have been at with nothing but Rs going back to Reagan. I shudder to think where we’d be if the always bad for workers, debt, deficit, poverty  level,  and economy in general Rs had been in charge without that blessed peace and prosperity break. EEEEWWWW indeed!

                    8. Do you think it’s possible to disagree without the other side having to be amoral?

                    9. but that doesn’t mean it’s true in this case.

                      Republicans are currently the amoral party. They want nothing to get done this year so they will win the next election. This is not a secret.  

                    10. Than the Dems?  I seem to remember a lot of anti-war protestations that I don’t hear now when Obama has basically followed the Bush plan in Iraq and has actually added troops in Afghanistan.

                    11. Lots of Dems voted for the war. Dems had genuine disagreements over it. Do you remember this?

                      Republicans are genuinely different. They stay united in the Senate because they don’t care about anything but gaining political advantage in the election. Again, this is not a secret. It’s all you and BoulderRepublican and GOPWarrior have been talking about for the past year.

                    12. But people who only care about political gain without any consideration for anybody’s welfare but there own are clearly amoral.  How else do you explain voting against your own legislation just to avoid voting for anything Obama likes, too? If Obama and the Dems suddenly put out a bill tomorrow meeting every R demand, they’d vote against it just like they’ve abandoned legislation they sponsored themselves. It has nothing to do with any higher purpose.  Nothing. That’s pretty much the definition of amoral. I’m sure you know the difference betwen amoral and immoral.

                      As for Bunning he may not be amoral.  He’s too crazy to be judged by normal standards. He is probably suffering from dementia complicated by clinical paranoia to a degree that relieves him of much responsibility for his appalling behavior. Kyl is despicable for arguing that unemployment is a picnic for breadwinners with heavy family responsibilities but he is mentally  competent, no excuses there.  No excuses for your minority leaders either.  

    2. Great op to explain how the Senate rules are so far from democratic that one Senator can enforce 1 to 99 minority rule.  

      Great op to compare that to actual majority rule reconciliation, to bring up all the times Bunning and the rest of Rs used reconciliation on legislation dealing with issues of huge economic consequence like Bush tax cuts.

      Great op to bring up hypocrisy of Bunning and other Rs getting religion only now, only on Dem legislation and Dem reconciliation after history of voting for all kinds of Bush era largesse, often via reconciliation, and against pay-go.

      Great op for showing laid off, moderate R, fiftyish engineers and such just how much Rs like Bunning care (tough sh–) and that Rs like Kyl think they’re in hog heaven on unemployment, with no motivation to look for work, with mortgages they took when they had good jobs, kids in schools they thought they could afford, etc.

      Perfect op for Bennet to hit the airwaves on both the call for reconciliation and for Senate rules reform.  Provided perfect for dummies example of what’s wrong with system we have now where one Senator can bring the whole thing to a halt.

      Also nice timing for Rep. Weiner’s rip them a new one appearance on Fox. The comparison between that and AR’s Fox appearance coupled with glowing praise for Bennet on Rachel Maddow and Countdown more bad news for AR, though, and just in time for caucus.

      Oh and Rachel Maddow got to feature years worth of articles from Bunning home state papers questioning his mental state.

      Enjoy, LB.  Me? I’m going to call Bunning and Kyl to say thank you.  

       

      1. What if all the Dem activists called Bunning and congratulated him on his brave stand?  Maybe we could get him to keep doing it until the election.

    3. The country did not elect Democrats to continue Republican policies.  This legislation is terrible legislation to you because it isn’t Republican which is the whole point of elections.  When something doesn’t work the people get to elect new leaders who bring in new programs.

      I can tell you that the stimulus money is being used to great effect in Gilpin County because we are implementing CWPP fire mitigation projects with our $240k and building fire breaks behind some vulnerable subdivisions using local contractors.

      My wife has treatable asthma but was turned down for having a preexisting conditions by EVERY health insurance plan when she was between jobs.  After she got hired, she was enrolled in the company plan no questions asked.  I am delighted that the Obama administration is pushing ahead with a piece of majority legislation that will provide better health care for marginalized citizens like my wife.

      If you don’t like the current policies which approved by the voters in this country then work on providing better solutions to dealing with the causes of our problems.  To say that the country demands the continuation of the failed Republican policies of the past is beyond ludicrous.

    4. As Raphie pointed out, it might make more sense if Bunning had actually voted for Paygo and the budget task force.

      And if you think people who are out of work and relying on those government benefits to make ends meet are more worried about spending than they are about feeding their families, you’ve completely lost touch with the average American.

      I’m still not sold on this being something that could rescue the Democrats, but in the vein of you really hoping everything Obama does domestically fails (no matter the consequences to average people) I’m going to keep hoping that Republicans continue to block everything in the Senate so the media keeps this story in the cycle. It’s win-win for us, really.

  3. As we say in the cruder parts of the state.  Polisci’s will look back on this election cycle and compare it to 1994.  The difference will be that the Republicans held off on their obstruction until the elections were closer.  (That is, the overt obstruction.)  They didn’t issue the Contract until August.  This time they have been grandstanding since before the inauguration.  They had to issue a health insurance reform package early this year.  Now, the Democrats have something to shoot back at, and they’ve been doing it.  Eventually, to paraphrase Lincoln, the people don’t get fooled anymore.  

    I hope, for my own selfish reasons, that the Republican Party has jumped the shark with this.  From now on, Harry Reid can just keep saying “There you go again.”

      1. Reconciliation can’t be bogged down.  That’s the whole idea.  Now if you mean that the GOP is going to shut down the Senate from doing any other business – I hope they try.  Bunning’s antics did wonders for the narrative.

      3. for wanting to continue to have people suffer for your ideological extremism?

        You should be happy to see this God-awful piece of legislation pass then you can campaign against it.

        God knows that you would ever think of problems in any terms other than political.  

        It’s a God damned shame that Republicans think winning elections means they get to carry out their agenda even if it means using the nuclear option but losing elections means that they have to prevent the programs of the new administration from being enacted.

        Not even God would accept this double standard as a reasonable perspective on the democratic process.

        God bless all those who understand that in a democracy the other guy sometimes gets to make the decisions but it doesn’t make him evil if his agenda isn’t the same as Republicans.

  6. He didn’t object to the bill.  He objected to passing the bill without finding a way to pay for it.  Remember when every single Senator agreed to abide by “PAYGO” rules?

    But the real story is the Obama press conference today where he said everything BUT reconciliation.  Can’t wait until that word actually comes out of his mouth for the first time in regard to their plans.

    Oh well–the bill is still dead in the water.

    1. without any way of paying for them. He’s voted against pay-go. He’s a complete hypocrite. Kentucky papers are full of articles that go so far as to claim there must be something mentally wrong with the guy. His most honest moment was when he told hundreds of thousands of people who can’t make ends meet on unemployment, can’t keep up with their bills, can’t send their kids to college and would love to be able find a job if only somebody in this economy would hire, say, an over-qualified 50 year old professional, “tough shit”.

      That’s, at least, truly what he thinks of his constituents and fellow citizens: I’ve got mine.  I’m ticked off at being cast aside. Screw all of you.  And it was fine with the GOP leadership until they started worrying that the blow back might cost more than the gains from pandering to the loons are worth.

      The way you people carry on about Pelosi being the damned antichrist is hysterical.  Your party is presently under the most obviously, purely and absolutely amoral, vile leadership in living memory. Compared to your minority leaders, Reid and Pelosi may as well be Albert Schweitzer and Mother Teresa.  

        1. I have seen that some in Kentucky postulated, a good while back, that he might be suffering from dementia. But just wow!  Of course Reagan was re-elected while already suffering early stage dementia so I guess being of sound mind isn’t a concern for R elected officials. I’ve noticed at my mother-in-law’s nursing home that some of those who are out there are sweet but most are out there and ornery.  And deeply paranoid.  At least Reagan was out there and sunny.

        1. And it’s not 100% that Stark will be the replacement – apparently there’s some doubt about it.  I don’t know more, but I do know that nothing’s formal yet.  There may be some other shuffling going on behind the scenes.

        2. Your title doesn’t match what he actually says.

          Get the F**k Out or I’ll Throw You Out the Window”

          “But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.”

          I guess it’s a good thing I rarely take anyone’s word for it and opt to actually listen to the video instead.

          1. …the quote links to the second video, where (at the very end of the interview) he cuts off the reporter and tells him to “get the f*ck out” or he’ll “throw [him] out the window.”

            And to PhoenixRising…they ALWAYS have a say over who becomes the chairman.  If they wanted to prevent it from being Pete Stark, they could, and they would.  But they like him, violent temper and clear insanity not withstanding.

            1. Stark isn’t in yet, and it’s not clear that he will be.  No announcement’s been made as to who will become interim chair.  

              Heck, there’s the possibility that they could toss Rangel out of the chair altogether and shuffle the leadership board around.  Chair of Ways and Means is the top non-leadership job in the House; everyone will want to move up the chain…

            2. At least he didn’t tell the guy, “I wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.”

              Now that might have been considered offensive.

              1. But telling a constituent (an elderly one who made a reasonable request for a justifiable reason) that he would be a “waste of urine,” and threatening a reporter that he would “throw [him] out the window” are a little over the top.  Especially since they weren’t anywhere near the first floor.

    2. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-…

      The Senate voted along party lines on Thursday to adopt statutory pay-go rules in a party-lines vote.

      60 Democratic senators voted to adopt the pay-go measure (short for “pay-as-you-go”), which would require that new spending measures be offset in the budget by other funds, typically raised through tax increases or cuts to spending.

      Republicans have said that by installing the rule, pay-go would become an excuse for tax hikes, since spending cuts are frequently unpopular.

      All Democrats voted for the measure, and all 40 Republicans voted against it. The House adopted such a rule in a 265-166 vote last July.

      I hope the fact that you’re completely wrong doesn’t prevent you from continuing to make the argument.

      Republicans blocked EVERY Democratic proposal, whether it fit their fake little ideology or not. Every Republican Senator, including whackjob Jim Bunning, voted against PAYGO.

    3. First, as I pointed out to LB…  In addition to your being wrong about Bunning supporting PAYGO when the Democrats passed it, the Democrats acknowledged the realities of the financial crisis and exempted bills – like this one – designed to deal with the crisis from PAYGO.

      Second, Obama didn’t use the word, but he certainly supported the concept.  Maybe you’ve heard of it… Republicans called it the ‘up-or-down vote’.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

132 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!