Beware the lame duck Congress
Charles Krauthammer says it here.
Not to brag, but I also said it, exactly one month ago. It’s not every day I beat Krauthammer to the punch.
I sincerely hope we’re both wrong, though, about the substance of what we think the Congressional Democrats are planning for their lame duck session.
I used to think Krauthammer was very smart.
The last sentence in his column tells me he is either naive or suffering from long term and short term memory loss.
Has he not seen Obama break every promise he has made?
And what kind of people does Krauthammer think occupy Congress?
Honorable? No. They are liars, tax cheats and actual law breaking criminals. Congress is the federal Mafia.
Congress has no idea what the word honarable even means.
1. I’m inclined to believe that such an Attack of the Lame Ducks would force Scott Brown and the Maine Sisters into a defensive perimeter with the rest of the GOP and everything would be filibustered.
2. Obama has said that he’d rather be a consequential one-term President than a mediocre two-termer. I don’t believe him.
3. It bears recalling that the 1998 lame duck Congress impeached Clinton despite the electorate’s clear wish to the contrary.
4. A lame duck scenario should not be ignored in Republican contingency planning, but it should not be yet another alarmist distraction from the party’s and country’s underlying problems.
Well Krauthammer was singing a slightly different tune just a couple of weeks ago when this very question came up on the Fox All-Star panel on Bret Baier’s Fox News evening news hour. He said then that no lame-duck congress would ever do such things as they are now clearly contemplating; I was amazed. I don’t know, it strikes me now and then that he doesn’t have as much of an edge as he used to (who among us does?), and that either he’s not entirely clear about the nature of his enemy or he’s getting tired of fighting. I was encouraged to see his column this morning, but with that last bit about not believing anyone could be so dishonorable, he kind of cut his own legs out from under himself. That’s what I think, anyway.
betsybounds: Krauthammer still thinks they’re playing by the old rules. I think they are not.
“1. I’m inclined to believe that such an Attack of the Lame Ducks would force Scott Brown and the Maine Sisters into a defensive perimeter with the rest of the GOP and everything would be filibustered.” gs
That’s very likely plus there’s this,
“There are now six unelected members of the U.S. Senate; they represent Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, New York, and West Virginia. The rules governing the seating of senators elected to replace appointed senators are left to the states in the 17th amendment. New York’s law specifies the date the new senator takes office as January 3, so Kirsten Gillibrand will still be a senator in a potential lame-duck session, regardless of the outcome of her election bid. The other five states, however, all have laws that indicate the election winners may be seated immediately following their election – in time for the lame-duck session.”
Election Wins Can Stop Lame-Duck Threat
I dont know why, but he reminds me of the villian who could smell children from chitty chitty bang bang…
anyway
Britain no longer has the cash to defend itself from every threat, says Liam Fox
Britain cannot afford to protect itself against all potential threats to its security, Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, has warned.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7905649/Britain-no-longer-has-the-cash-to-defend-itself-from-every-threat-says-Liam-Fox.html
Neo, I think they are not, too.
gs,
I hate to disagree with you, really. But–I think that the kind of lame duck scenario we’re looking at is nothing like an alarmist distraction from the country’s underlying problems. It’s very much part and parcel of them. We’re not talking about idle trivia, here. We’re talking about a continuation and expansion of the Democrats’ determination to govern against the will of the people of this great country–whose very founding principles, after all, embody the consent of the governed.
I think there is some significant difference between what we see going on now and what you refer to with respect to Clinton’s impeachment at the hands of a lame duck congress. That sorry episode was about Clinton and the congress, it was window dressing, it was a show. The electorate didn’t want it, but it wasn’t about the fundamentals of how we will live. This is the real deal, buddy, this is about the structure and function of the country, and about who shall control it.
Duck hunting is popular in some regions, no?
No worries, betsy. You seem like a reasonable sort–no personal attack in your comment, no attempt to bully me off the site–and afaic reasonable people can disagree.
Excuse that I don’t respond to your points: it’s late. If the lame duck/impeachment comparison still seems relevant in coming days, I’ll respond then.
However, I do note that Intrade.com’s odds of a Republican House are only 55%. If Obama opponents don’t focus on the election and/or the GOP exercises its talent for pulling defeat from the jaws of victory, the lame duck scenario will be immaterial.
I had been considering such a post on my blog but others, far more qualified, are beating me to it.
So, instead of posting a second-rate clone of their efforts, I hereby offer the title “Kamikazi Congress” to anyone who wants it.
–
The Democratic leadership knows about the fillibuster – they’re old hands at it. So there seem to only be two rational views:
1. This is nothing but red meat to their base, trying to preemptively bank the coals and keep the flames of the left smoldering.
2. They think that they can buy off enough Senators who lose their seats to break the fillibuster. So the question is: who are these?
2010 is the class of 2004 – strongly Republican. 2012 and 2014 are 2006 and 2008 respectively – strongly Democrat. I don’t think that these Democrats are inclined to open their reelection efforts by falling on their swords to support policies that are strongly refudiated by the voters. It is already apparent that some (Nelson, Bayh and – I don’t recall) are openly opposed to taxing “the rich”. Lame duck session? De nada.