Where’s My Trigger?! Your Weekly Iran Sanctions Update
May 13, 2010

This week saw more confident language surrounding ongoing UN sanctions talks:

"I am very confident that unless Iran does something significant that demonstrates that it is taking confidence building measures, I am very confident we will get a Security Council resolution that is supported by the majority of the UN Security Council."

In his comments this past Tuesday, White House WMD czar Gary Samore confirmed his belief that both Russia and China are likely to support an eventual resolution.

Unfortunately, Samore is not so confident about the zombie fuel swap, noting that that current Brazilian and Turkish efforts are unlikely to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough and, as such, the US is holding out little hope for the deal.

“The Iranians have frankly not been prepared to accept that offer, it’s pretty clear to anybody,” Samore said, “and Turkey will soon satisfy themselves of that.”

He also added that Iran’s “nuclear clock is not moving as quickly as some feared, because of problems the Iranians have had in terms of their centrifuges,” but declined to say whether the centrifuge problems were a result of alleged Western attempts to thwart work by the machines.

Meanwhile, Congress is hard at work making the case against exemptions for cooperating countries from corporate sanctions, such as those requested by the administration…

60 Democratic Senators Is Not a Magic Number!
Nov 19, 2008

I wanted the Democrats to win each Senate race. They did quite well overall in the states where we know the results. We still don’t know the results for Alaska, Minnesota and Georgia. Georgia may be determined fastest because there is a run-off election on December 2.

The media shows its lack of understanding of the US Senate with its obsessive focus on the question of whether the Democrats will have 60 votes counting the two Independents who caucus with the Democrats. The media assumption is that 60 Senate seats lead to a filibuster proof Senate. Most of the media neither knows nor understands the way the Senate now works. Sixty Senate Democrats does not guarantee votes on major issues.

Senate Democrats rarely are unanimous, even though on most issues a substantial number vote together. They are mostly joined by the two Independents (Sanders of VT and Lieberman of CT). The consistent exception has been the Iraq war where Lieberman filibustered with the Republicans and blocked the Senate from voting on the merits of the issue numerous times.

Senate conservatives and reactionaries have mainly used the filibuster to block progressive change. Their use of the filibuster literally prevents an issue from being brought to a vote. Historically, its most notorious use prevented civil rights progress on basic issues such as anti-lynching, protection of voting rights, and outlawing racial discrimination. Its occassional use by liberals (rarely successful) does not justify it. The filibuster stands as the weapon of those determined to block necessary change with their fierce determination to prevent issues from being decided. It protects the status quo and privilege.

As the Republican party presidential election base narrows to southern and border states, southern, border, and small state Senators may resort to the filibuster as they did in the Bush years. In the 110th Congress (the one coming to an end), Republicans resorted to the filibuster 94 times, thereby setting a new and dubious record.

The way to overcome filibusters is to recognize that liberals and Democratic and Republican  moderates have to negotiate workable compromises to isolate the Republicans who say no to everything constructive. That is likely to be more possible in an Obama Administration that will stand for pragmatic problem-solving changes, in contrast to the Bush record of blocking solutions to pressing public problems.

On issues such as energy and health care, negotiations will have to occur both among Democrats and between Democrats and Republicans to get that desired result.

I want Begich, Franken, and Martin to win respectively in Alaska, Minnesota, and Georgia. They will add progressive voices to the Senate. The need to bring the small band of Democratic and Republican moderates along to join the liberals, and thwart the likely filibustering opposition of the Senate Republican leadership, continues.

The ability to negotiate successfully is at the heart of moving the progressive and Obama agenda through the Senate minefield.

Lieberman’s Escape from Responsibility Continues
Nov 13, 2008

Senator Lieberman clearly doesn’t believe in accepting political responsibility for his active support of Senator McCain for President. He wants the benefit of voting with the Democrats, while having actively opposed the Democratic Party nominee for President, now President-Elect Obama. Lieberman has no shame.

President-Elect Obama exercised graciousness when he said Lieberman should not be kicked out of the Democratic caucus. Obama is right. But that still means the Senate Democrats, as a caucus and a party, have a responsibility to deny Lieberman the Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.

Let me be clear. Lieberman is not being punished for votes cast as a legislator, such as his support for the Iraq war. That is between him and Connecticut voters. They have another issue with him. He has visited Connecticut for 8 days after his 2006 election and prior to November 4. His absence reflect his abandonment of Connecticut voters.

On Sen. Joe Lieberman: It's the Chairmanship that Counts
Oct 21, 2008

Washington Correspondent Mike Madden of Salon news recently wrote an article about whether or not Democrats should take away Sen. Joe Lieberman's chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

I hope he is right in predicting that Lieberman will lose his chairmanship, but that is far from a foregone outcome.

Let's say Democrats end up with at least 53 seats, McCain wins, and Palin is Vice-President. In that case, Lieberman's vote isn't needed for the Democrats to control the Senate. The Democatic margin is likely to be even greater no matter who wins the Presidency, so there should be no question that the Senate Democrats will be the majority party in the next Congress.

Lieberman deserves to lose his chairmanship because he violated a core principle: he supported the Republican candidate for President - and not casually - and therefore forefeits the benefits of the Democratic caucus. This has nothing to do with relationships in the cozy Senate club. This is public accountability - if Democrats let Lieberman keep his chairmanship, they will have forefeited elementary accountability and caucus integrity. This is tantamount to the Democrats surrendering to one man and forefeiting their ability to govern. They will have led with weakness.

He should lose his chairmanship, but not be kicked out of the caucus. Anyone who wants to vote with the Democrats as the majority should be permitted to, unless a person is the likes of David Duke.

A separate question is whether Lieberman should lose his Committee assignments and go to the bottom of the Democratic seniority list. (That is what happened to Wayne Morse when he left the Republican Party and became an Independent.) Because Lieberman kept his pledge to Connecticut voters and voted to organize the Senate with Democrats as the majority, kicking him off of his legislative Committees is more problematic. But losing his chairmanship if the Democratic total is at least 52 should be non-negotiable.

This issue will test the Senate Democrats on whether they have political party and caucus accountability. The question for Senate Democrats is do they have the gumption not to keep rewarding a Senator with a chairmanship who supported the Republican candidate for President?

Senator Lieberman Crosses Many Lines: One Matters Most
Sep 22, 2008

Senator Lieberman’s descent into political isolation will come after the election if the Democrats have at least 52 seats, no matter who is President. Lieberman has to pay a political price in the Senate for his endorsement of John McCain for President.

As a participant in successful efforts to strip House Democrats who supported Goldwater in 1964 of seniority, and strip three unfair and arbritrary Committee Chairmen of their posts after the House Democratic landslide in 1974 (post-Watergate), I can attest to the precise reasons for stripping legislators of their chairmanships and seniority.

Lieberman’s views on the Iraq war and his Iran bellicosity are not reasons. Even his outrageous connection with Reverend Hagee does not per se sink Lieberman. Even McCain rejected Hagee’s endorsement after his anti-Catholic comments. Hagee's tepid apology to Catholics does not reduce the virulence of his essential bigotry. Lieberman’s occassional liberalism (pro-choice, opposition to Alito’s confirmation, his leadership on global warming and DC’s rights to vote and to representation in the House) do not mitigate his actions in support of McCain for President.