Democrats are frantic to try and find something as earth-shattering and meaningful as a Republican winning in the bluest of blue states...

Sadly, Grayson winning a Republican district in Florida isn't even on the same planet. :D

Michale.....

Looks like there is more to this story than another Dem critter in a scandal..

Eric Massa: Democrats ousted me over health care

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34051.html

Heh, sorry, got a little carried away there.

Not at all..

With apologies to David (re: what he said in a previous commentary) this (and politics in genera;) *IS* a Right vs Left issue..

It would be nice if it wasn't but it is.

Somewhere out there, there is a Right-Wing version of CW, posting the same kinds of (mostly) logical and rational political commentaries.

Each faction has their good points and bad points..

That is why being an independent is so much fun. I can point to the good points and ridicule the bad points.. :D

Michale.....

Michale.....

Such a poll is utterly pointless but Democrats are desperate for good news.

Secondly, there were 13 Republicans to one Democrat. The hardline GOP vote was split. According to my maths 14.5% stated a preference for a specific GOP candidate. On top of this, the undecided vote (57.7%) is likely to be undecided amongst Republican candidates.

Thirdly, in the current climate voters are voting for candidates rather than parties, adopting a "wait and see" approach. This only increases the importance of name recognition. It's precisely for that reason that I won't say that all of the undecided voters would vote Republican, though I think the assumption that most would remains valid.

The new candidate in the race is a lot more acceptable to Progressives, and seems to have a decent chance in the primary, from all accounts.

He has a fractionally better chance to win the general election than Lincoln (unless Hendren is the GOP candidate. Halter polls worse against Hendren than Lincoln). It's still about 70% likely that Arkansas is changing hands, though.

Reid may be the MIDOTW in your eyes, but I'd say that many people blame Reid for the delay more than Bunning. On both sides of the aisle people are claiming that Reid was playing politics too. Daily Kos, for example, blamed Reid for not pulling an all-nighter. They hammered Bunning too, but you'd expect nothing less from a hardline left-wing blog.

Then there are those who criticise him for not discussing the issue sooner. Everyone knew full well when the benefits were going to run out, why leave it so late? One can only conclude that Reid wanted to stifle debate by forcing the issue through so close that any Senator who objected could be vilified, as Bunning was. It was Reid who scrapped the bipartisan jobs bill which included an extension of benefits, and then proceeded to create another bill without them.

So Reid tried to appear fiscally responsible to Nevada voters whilst berating Bunning for actually being fiscally responsible. After his jobs bill, Reid moved onto a tourism bill. This bill's main beneficiary was Nevada.

Meanwhile others have blamed Reid for not even considering using unspent Stimulus money to fund it. Bunning asked to use Stimulus money, Reid said no, Bunning asked for debate. This shows the Democrats up as the real "Party of No", insisting on their way or the high way. Just as they have done on healthcare reform.

It was Reid who blocked unemployment benefits, not Bunning, and it was Bunning who climbed down from his ideological high horse to help the unemployed. Reid could have forced cloture, so that the benefits were extended by Wednesday, but didn't. He could have kept the Senate in session over the weekend, so they could have been extended by Monday. He didn't. Where exactly is Reid's "win" here?

Bunning was insisting that Democrats honour the PayGo commitments that they made, that Obama signed into law. The unspent stimulus money has already been approved. Far from Bunning providing a good case study for Republican obstructionism, I'd argue Republicans should use this as an example of Democrats failing to keep their promises. Here's a quote from the man himself to make the point:

“If we can’t find $10 billion dollars to pay for something that all 100 senators support, we will never pay for anything.” (emphasis added)

Besides, whilst it would be a politically unpopular argument to make, extending benefits keeps people unemployed longer. Before the stimulus the median duration of unemployment was around 10 weeks. Half of those who were part of the jobless figures one month were employed again within three months.

Since the stimulus extended unemployment benefits, the median duration of unemployment reached 18.7 weeks, nearly double. Worse yet, since it now takes closer to five months to find work, people take jobs for which they're overqualified and underemployment goes up.

The very fact that we're even pointing this out is a mess for the Democrats, because it feeds into the "we can't govern" image of Democrats that Republicans are sharpening up for the fall campaign.

I always said this was going to be where the real battle would be fought.

Stupak's award will be known as the "Joe Lieberman Of The House" award for his actions on the health reform bill.

I'd actually like to give birth to a "Most Impressive Republican Of The Week" award and give it to Stupak. ;-)

raising his middle finger to an ABC news team

And that, in a nutshell, is why Bunning screwed up framing the issue. His attitude and demeanour did no favours to what I still believe to be a damn strong case.

finally strong-armed Bunning into capitulation. The whole thing, politically, was a win for Democrats (and Harry Reid) and a loss for Republicans (and Bunning).

I'm not sure it was a win for the Democrats. Reid looked weak, he could have forced it through, but instead it took Republicans to be strong to get things done. It was a clear win for the Republicans, who once again showed that the Democrats can't govern, and that only Republicans have the backbone to run the country.

Democrats need to use Bunning as the poster child for Republican obstructionism, pretty much every chance they can get.

Except a) he backed down (thanks to the Republicans, not Democrats) and b) he offered constructive criticism and an alternative solution. He did nothing more than hold Democrats to their own promises. That's not obstructionism, it's opposition, and that's precisely what the loyal opposition are supposed to do.

"Jim Bunning proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Republicans truly are the 'Party of No' when he singlehandedly held up a bill that provided much-needed relief for thousands of unemployed Americans merely to score a political point.

Except many people recognise it was Reid who stopped the bill (by not using all the tools at his disposal) to try and score a political point with this "Party of No" rubbish.

Republicans consistently put politics above actual governing, and this is just the most recent example. Voters in November will be faced with the 'Party of No' versus the 'Party of Let's Get Something Done For America.'

Reid was the one putting politics above governing. The Democrats are the "Party of Let's Try And Get Something Done But Not Even Be Able To Get Our Own Party To Vote For Our Bills" when it comes to healthcare. ;-)

Judging from what they put in the actual document, the Founders would be appalled at the idea that every major bill should need the votes of three-fifths of the Senate to pass.

I'd say the same would apply to judicial appointments, yet Democrats had no problem requiring every single judicial nominee to receive the votes of three-fifth of the Senate. As we said last week, plenty of hypocrisy to go around here.

The underlying "principle" here seems to be that it's fine to pass tax cuts for the wealthy on narrow votes but an outrage to use reconciliation to help middle-income and poor people get health insurance.

That, I have to concede, is a damn fine point. There's little difference substantively in what the Democrats are ostensibly using reconciliation for (to lower the costs of the Senate bill) and the Bush's tax cuts (intended to stimulate further growth in the economy).

So the Republicans can either vote with us to remove these deals, or they can vote for the Cornhusker Kickback to stay in the bill. They can't have it both ways.

That'd be true if the sidecar only takes out the special interest deals, but should it include other things, like a public option, then that framing won't work. The Republicans will simply say that the Democrats are trying to push through their original agenda by masking it under the guise of getting rid of special interests.