On the same day that the 1/6 Commission debate (DEBATE) was filibustered, another Biden pick to the Board of Governors of the Post Office was confirmed by voice vote (one of the things Schumer handled by universal consent). A summary of the current situation can be found here, which includes upcoming increase of rates (such as a fifty-eight cents stamp). The head of the Board has been something of a villain, which various people wish would be fired or even removed for cause.
As noted on that LGM thread, including in answer to a comment of mine, DeJoy is not someone that came from nowhere. Not only does he have support from at least one of the "Democratic" members, as noted by the MSNBC link, but the "neo-liberal" (if that is the right word) approach has been around for a while. But, you have to start somewhere here, and DeJoy provides a way not only to stop the bleeding some,, but also a way for another view to promote their view of the postal service. A good way to do that is to find a convenient target.
New York: I saw a reference providing kudos in part to my state for improvements in the area of felony disenfranchisement. ("New York and Washington enacted laws in the past two months that automatically restore voting rights to people convicted of felonies after they are released from prison.") As cited in my comment, as attention by many (including me) is nationally, reform also happens locally. This is especially seen in the area of criminal justice reform, making local races that much more important.
I fully grant my continual lack of attention on my local government, including since so many news/blog sources are more nationally focused. Here is a link to an article on ranked choice voting. The time for early voting is approaching and extended locations are available. Doing a search, a closer one to me pops up though it is cited as a church, which to me has questionable First Amendment implications.
Anyway, I still am not fully sure about all my choices though my first choice for mayor is leaning toward Maya Wiley. My sentiment was more to Morales, the most lefty candidate, but her issues with labor in her own campaign staff and decision not to provide a #2 choice to me is problematic. Kathryn Garcia is somewhat more realistic as a compromise choice, having experience and less strongly conservative leaning than Eric Adams. Plus, I want a woman mayor. OTOH, Adams might actually have to be my fourth or fifth rank as a guard against Andrew Yang. I also have to finalize other races.
[ETA: We have a second Stringer allegation but it was from a LONG time ago and I think he handled it better than the more hard push -- including the misleading suggestion the accuser supported Andrew Yang -- against the first one. And, it really doesn't seem the first got much traction, though it did lose him some key endorsements.
It's just unclear how much support he has. From what I can tell, maybe, he might be getting 15% or something at the moment. But, Garcia has more compromise energy. I'm inclined to go for Wiley (more so after both Julian Castro and AOC endorsed) and even as a safety choice with five ranks, not sure there is much value in voting for him. We shall see.]
Trump Oversight: Back in the days of Air America, Al Franken pushed for Democrats to win in 2006 (tempus fugit) because it would give them increased power of oversight, including subpoena power. But, subpoena power is limited by the intransigence of executive actors, allowing them to run out the clock and overall stonewall. The whole thing is quite aggravating and was a less remembered part of Trump's first impeachment, the count that Romney did not support.
We continue to have repeated instances of stonewalling here, including the Garland Justice Department not wanting to release much of a Barr letter related to the Mueller Investigation. They see it as a matter of deliberation privilege, but the net result is aiding stonewalling. From what I can tell, the House still have not seen Trump's tax returns. Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn refusing to testify for years is another. At least there, to some degree, he fucking finally is at least somewhat (so aggravating) testifying. We shall see what comes of it.
Filibuster: I'm working on another Supreme Court entry (will be a lot of material this month) and referenced Senator Sinema, who is getting a lot of vitriol for her public stance against filibuster reform and bipartisan theater (including a public event with one of the most partisan Republicans, the somewhat less annoying senator from Texas). My comment was that yeah she deserves strong criticism, as does Manchin, but she isn't a DINO.
People, including some experts in the area, feel we are at a particularly dangerous moment and need strong action to attack Republican anti-democratic actions. This is particularly, but not limited, to voting issues. (So, e.g. GLBT rights isn't likely.) I saw something that Schumer was going to bring the big voting rights bills (or least one) to a vote at the end of June. Vice President Harris (still nice to say) basically volunteered to help lead the effort. Good luck with that, Kamala.
But, what chance is there without changing or ending the filibuster? The continual dance on the infrastructure bill, which doesn't hit to the basic ideology/electoral chances of Republicans as much as voting, shows the chances of getting ten votes. The push to end the filibuster is nice, but what chance does it have? The reality here is that when you have no margin for error,* you are going to be stuck with one or more people that are going to be big pains. And, it also leaves me to think the most realistic thing to do there is to severely weaken the filibuster, especially to the degree it is somewhat symbolic/theater for the two key troublemakers.
As we are getting back to normal on COVID, it does seem even more appropriate to ratchet up the pressure on voting rights. If the big voting rights bill is too far realistically, fine, focus on some core measures that will push the ball forward there. I'm also interested what Pamela Karlan, a voting rights expert that is in the Biden Justice Department thinks. Meanwhile, various people are crying out that the damn house is on fire.
But, it is damn hard to have major change with no margin of error. The situation was different in the 1960s. McConnell didn't push any major changes, mainly doing nothing to restrain Trump, including helping to push judicial nominees. So, it is not even totally clear it is a "you know Republicans would do this" sort of thing. I won't pretend I know the answer. Weakening the filibuster to me very well is a reasonable offer, and one that just might have a shot. Let's see what July 1st brings.
---
* No margin of error means relying on Joe Manchin, a senator who did not get some supermajority of votes really even from West Virginia. This is why it is so depressing that the Dems couldn't get one or two safety senators last November. Hair on fire all you want -- you have cause -- but numbers don't lie here. How exactly do you convince Manchin? Biden isn't quite LBJ, and the Great Society didn't have to get sixty votes.
Arizona is a somewhat different thing -- Sinema barely won in 2018, but Biden/Kelly (both of whom were helped by support of the candidates specifically; Biden particularly won narrowly) suggests Democrats might push for a somewhat different Democrat later on. 2024 is pretty far alone though. The link is one of many valid criticisms of Sinema's logic, but again, what do you do to move forward here? Need more senators.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!