Tomorrow, the 111th Congress Gets Sworn In...

posted by NetRunner 1 decade 6 years 2 months ago • 926 views
Democrats now have large majorities in both the House and the Senate. They have a Democratic President (I might've mentioned his name once or twice before) that will be sworn in two weeks later. A major victory in my book.

But now, with the 2008 elections now over, the real battles will begin.

Here are the ones I foresee, in the order I think they'll be tackled, not their importance:

  1. Did you buy that seat on eBay?

    In case you haven't heard Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested a few weeks ago for attempting to sell Barack Obama's now-vacant Senate seat. Despite his initial promise not to appoint anyone, last week he held a press conference to announce he was appointing Roland Burris. Senate Democrats now are working overtime to find a way to block Burris from being seated, since any appointment made by Blagojevich under these conditions will be suspect.

    There's a Constitutional question here about whether they have the authority to do this or not, but there's no doubt they can delay seating him until the legal actions (both indictment and possibly impeachment of Blagojevich) play out.

  2. He's good enough, smart enough, but Doggone it, will the Senate seat him?

    One of the sub-stories of the 2008 election has been the Minnesota Senate election, which pit incumbent Republican Norm Coleman against Democrat (and SNL alum) Al Franken for one of MN's Senate seats.

    The original election results gave Coleman a very narrow lead -- some 200-ish votes out of nearly 3 million cast. Under MN election law, this triggered an automatic recount. This afternoon, the recount officially ended, with the board certifying Al Franken the victor by 225 votes.

    Coleman is vowing to contest the election results, and John Cornyn (R-TX) is promising to filibuster any attempt to seat Franken.

    So, likely tomorrow we'll already see sparks fly as Democrats seek to block the seating of one of their own for ethical reasons, while the Republicans seek to block a legally elected member of the opposing party for their usual self-serving reasons.

  3. How big is Obama's Package*?

    In case you've been living in a cave for the last bit, you might've heard we're having, well, a slight case of the Great Depression lately.

    Obama's been talking about a stimulus package since, oh, April at least, and now it's time to see if he can make it happen.

    There have been a lot of numbers floated about the size of Obama's stimulus package. Republicans have talked $0. Democratic Congressmen have talked $300-$400bn. Biden's hinted at $700-$800bn. The press speculated $1 trillion or more.

    Now the papers are abuzz with news about the package including $400bn worth of tax cuts. Many people seem surprised, but again, Obama's been talking about this for a loooong time...he plans on putting the "cut" portion of his tax plan into the simulus package. I'll be surprised if that's not the starting point for the bill that gets proposed -- the much vaunted middle-class and small-business tax cuts he campaigned on.

    During the campaign Republicans called it socialism. Let's see if they dust that one off for another try now.

    Whatever trick they decide to go with, Mitch McConnell just vowed, on Meet the Press, to delay all attempts at economic stimulus until he's satisfied there have been "enough" hearings.

    The opening moves are already in play on this one.

    * His stimulus package, pervert.

  4. Eric who?

    To me, Obama's choice for Attorney General was the pick I watched most closely. This is the cabinet position that will ultimately tell us whether we will see investigations into the crimes committed by the Bush administration, or whether there will be a bipartisan cleanup.

    He's nominated Eric Holder, and what I've seen so far gives me hope -- especially the way the Republicans seem to be gearing up for a big battle over Holder's confirmation.

    Expect blasts from the past, as Republicans dig up Clinton-era bogeymen like Mark Rich and Elian Gonzalez to try to derail Holder's confirmation.

    I'm not sure why they think that will work, but I guess since he was Deputy Attorney General under Clinton, that's good enough to make him unsuitable in their eyes.

    This is one to keep an eye on. Hopefully this doesn't end up ranking with the other three battles I'm mentioning, and Holder passes with relative ease, but I've got a feeling this one will wind up being a big fight.

Those are just the opening act, things I expect us to see through this month and next.

A little further off, we're going to have fights about the Employee Free Choice Act ("card check" if you're a Republican), and Universal Healthcare. Expect Republicans to pull out every single stop to try to stop Universal Healthcare.

Frankly, I hope none of these battles get joined, and that the Republicans decide to try and constructively participate in the legislative process, rather than try to block any and all actions that Democrats try to make.

Unfortunately, when you look at recent history, that seems rather unlikely.

15 Comments

gwiz665 says...

"So, likely tomorrow we'll already see sparks fly as Democrats seek to block the seating of one of their own for ethical reasons, while the Republicans seek to block a legally elected member of the opposing party for their usual self-serving reasons."

This is so partisan that it could be straight out of Simpsons..

"Krusty: May I make a remark?
Interviewer (Fox): Certainly congressman.
Opponent: Hey, he hasn't won yet!?
Interviewer: You make a very adulterous point! And now we end with a commercial from Krusty the Clown's campaign."

NetRunner says...

>> ^gwiz665:
"So, likely tomorrow we'll already see sparks fly as Democrats seek to block the seating of one of their own for ethical reasons, while the Republicans seek to block a legally elected member of the opposing party for their usual self-serving reasons."
This is so partisan that it could be straight out of Simpsons..

Perhaps, but reality has a well-known liberal bias.

You could argue that Dems are blocking Burris for self-serving political reasons too, since they're just worried about the public concern over the ethical questions about seating him...but I'm thinking that's a pretty partisan viewpoint. They're doing it because of ethical concern, and whether it's heartfelt, or just because they're worried about the public's reaction isn't something you could ever prove or disprove.

The Franken case, is entirely different. There has been an exhaustive, bipartisan effort in Minnesota to conduct this recount fairly. Nearly all the key decisions that led to the result we have today were done by unanimous decision by a bipartisan elections board, or with unanimous decisions from the state's supreme court. Coleman's own lawyer says that it is unlikely they would be able to overturn the current results, and non-partisan analysis of his claims (all of which have already been struck down by the MN Supremes or the election board by unanimous decision) make it unlikely that a court would settle the case in a way that would be beneficial enough to Coleman to overtake Franken's final 225 vote lead.

As it turns out, we were relatively spark free today, Franken didn't show up at all, and Burris was turned away with only minor incident.

I still expect sparks on both of these in the near future, though.

>> ^rottenseed:
I don't think large majority is ever a good thing.


I agree, that's why I spend all my non-sift time campaigning to get more people to realize the sky is really yellow.

We've gotta put an end to this blue-sky majority.

And don't get me started on the radical Round-Earth agenda. They're almost as bad as the Heliocentrists.

NetRunner says...

On another note, I've got to add a new story that was breaking late yesterday through to today: Obama has named Leon Panetta to head the CIA.

Already we've heard from Jay Rockefeller (outgoing head of the Intelligence Committee) and Diane Feinstein (incoming head of the Intelligence Committee) say that they weren't consulted on the pick, and are concerned with Panetta's appointment.

Oh, and those are both Democrats.

Thing is, they're both the ringleaders of the pro-PATRIOT, pro-FISA, torture-neutral, telecomm immunity advocates in the Democratic caucus in the Senate.

Holder's nomination is important to me because of its implications for having justice brought to bear on the Bushies for torture & spying, but Panetta's appointment may be an even larger signal that this will be a subject Obama really wants to tackle, as Panetta has been riotously opposed to both the torture and domestic surveillance programs in the past.

The fact that Obama's otherwise meticulous transition team neglected to contact either ranking Senator on the Intelligence committee makes me wonder if they're sending a message to those two.

I guess time will tell. In any case, if the speculations are right, this will be one hell of a confirmation battle too.

volumptuous says...

>> ^rottenseed:
I don't think large majority is ever a good thing.


I would normally agree, but we need to un-fuck this country ASAP, and having too large a GOP presence in the congress would inevitably halt any progress. And not for any justifiable reasons, but just because they can.

That is their nature, and what dicklickers like McConnell and Cantor have publicly stated.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

New Blog Posts from All Members