Over in the States, the Senate Democrats are currently three members short of 60, a magic number which means they can end filibusters and drive through legislation the Republicans are really unhappy with.
With the elections long over, most have assumed that’s that for the Democrats chances of getting to supermajority. We thought it possible, but unlikely, back last November.
Yet things still seem to be going their way. Firstly there’s an independent member who caucuses with the Democrats: 58. The 59th member is Al Franken, a senatorial candidate for the Democrats in Minnesota who should have won ages ago but is having to fight court battles to hold onto his seat. The latest is that the Minnesotan courts have declared him the winner, but his opponent Norm Coleman still has the right to an appeal and then to appeal further to federal courts. Talk about a sore loser.
But finally this week the 60th Democratic senator emerged in the form of defecting Republican senator Arlen Spector, who has crossed the floor in opposition to just how right-wing the Republicans have become recently. Claiming he is following the trend set by 200,000 Republicans in his home state of Pennsylvania, Spector says his philosophy is now more in line with the Democrats.
As the NY Times reports:
Democrats were jubilant about the development.
President Obama was handed a note from an aide at 10:25 a.m. on Tuesday during his daily economic briefing. The note, according to a senior administration official, said: “Specter is announcing he is changing parties.”
Seven minutes later, Mr. Obama reached Mr. Specter by telephone. In a brief conversation, the president said: “You have my full support,” according to the official who heard the phone call. The president added that we are “thrilled to have you.”
Last time we discussed this on’t Voice, a deal of discussion ensued about the value of strong government. Should the Democrats get the awesome power of a filibuster-proof senate? Or is their greater value in having to work for consensus?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
Matt (Bristol)
8 Comments
Of course, party whipping is much less strong in the US and so having a caucus (group) of 60 Senators doesn’t guarantee you 60 cloture votes.
Conservative Democrats (Nelson, Bayh, Lincoln, Specter) and moderate Republicans (Collins, Snowe) will still hold a lot of sway collectively over whether the Obama administration can muster the 60 votes it needs to break a procedural filibuster.
That said, party switchers do still tend to move significantly in where they place their votes (see http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/what-kind-of-democrat-will-arlen.html) and so this is still pretty good news for the Democrats.
filibuster-proof senate is probably going to be the only way for him to push through his agenda now.
If the Dems put HealthCare reform through in the ‘reconciliation’ method (which is currently very likely) where no republican votes would be required, the GOP will declare war and try to restrict his agenda’s progress as much as possible. A supermajority would counter that likely situation.
The only thing worse would be a Republican ‘super majority’, and that’s only marginally worse.
The Democrats are a broad coalition, but mostly they seem to be more aligned with the Labour Party, corporate liberalism and managerialism rather than the LibDems and the European liberal tradition (exceptions apply of course).
Unfortunately, most of the Democrat’s big projects are focused around corporate liberalism and further state encroachment upon people’s lives, just from a different direction to the Republicans (whilst keeping most of Bush’s measures, which were in turn built upon Clinton’s agenda).
It depends on what they do with it once they get it. I have read that the last time anyone had the “supermajority” in the Sentae was 1937. That was under the presidency F D Roosevelt. If Obama does half as good a job as FDR with his “super majority” then that should be pretty satisfactory.
“Should the Democrats get the awesome power of a filibuster-proof senate? Or is their greater value in having to work for consensus?”
It’s impossible to work with the Republicans towards consensus. They are the biggest bunch of right wing reactionary you will find in a democracy. Work with anti-volcano monitoring Jindal? Work with Michelle Bachman? Work with Newt Gingrich?
Pffft, no thanks, and he even if they wanted to, not possible.
“The Democrats are a broad coalition, but mostly they seem to be more aligned with the Labour Party, corporate liberalism and managerialism rather than the LibDems and the European liberal tradition (exceptions apply of course).
Unfortunately, most of the Democrat’s big projects are focused around corporate liberalism and further state encroachment upon people’s lives, just from a different direction to the Republicans (whilst keeping most of Bush’s measures, which were in turn built upon Clinton’s agenda).”
Wow, you’re a loon. The Democrats are nothing like Labour, and are far more like the Lib Dems. The only reason the Democrats aren’t exactly the same as the LDs, is that the Democrats already have the liberal constitution in their country, whereas we don’t.
Claiming Bush’s measures were built on Clinton’s, and that Obama is keeping them, is as close to crackpot as you can get.
I hope the Dems get a supermajority and use it where they have consensus.
I would expect this to highlight the differences between the more moderate and hardline wings and hopefully define a significant third grouping in congress.
The advent of pluralism in federal US politics would be a significant development!
Laughing my head off at the GOP’s implosion. They asked for it with their shameless, repulsive cynicism & debasement of politics.
Let them be eviscerated in 2010. Let them nominate Palin in 2012 & have her stamped into the ground by Obama.
Cannot be bothered being nice when the likes of these are concerned.
Sorry but that just can’t be a good thing
The democrats suck just as much as the GOP
The best thing for the rest of the planet is when teh yanks have a divided house
Democratic leader, GOP Congress
or GOP leader democratic congress
THe Democratic party arn’t liberal in the slightest
unless liberal is some kind of cold war era slang for socialist
Did anyone watch the Adam Bolton assessment of Obama?
No policies have changes whatsoever
Bush=Obama
No end to agricultural subsidies
No end to the tariff on Brazilian bio-fuels
No end to the drug war
No end to the embargo on Cuba
No carbon tax, just more cap and trade bullsh@t
Anyone who trys to pretend that the democrats are liberals needs a serious reality check
(apart from Mike Gravel who is about as Liberal as JS. Mills On Liberty that guy absolutely f@ckin roks)