One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

The Philadelphia Inquirer gave the full front-page-banner-headline treatment this morning to the AP story of Alberto Gonzales being contradicted by Kyle Sampson, Gonzales’ former chief of staff, about Gonzales’ role in the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys.

Reporting the story this way is a good thing, since that’s the treatment it deserves (and at this point, based on this CNN story, I hope Gonzales remains through the 2008 election as a reminder of just how far the Repugs will go to protect one of their own, dirty or not – I know that will likely compromise other investigations, but as long as Bushco will continue to ignore the majority of the people of this country, it might as well work to our benefit).

Well, since some journalistic instinct still resident in that paper alertly snapped to life, you KNEW they would find a way to try and negate it, and if you guessed that meant another appearance by Kevin Ferris, then you automatically go to the head of the class (this isn’t as extreme as Ferris’ last column, but it still requires a response).

(First, though, we are also treated on the editorial page to a column by Charmaine Yoest of the Family Research Council – and as always, the Inquirer identifies “liberal” advocacy groups as such but never conservative ones – where she chides Sen. Bob Casey in advance to make sure he doesn’t support a bill by Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware that would fund embryonic stem cell research. In the process, Yoest repeats the evergreen lie that Casey’s father wasn’t allowed to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention because he opposed abortion; for the millionth time, it was because he didn’t endorse Clinton for president – why do I bother at this point?).

But this of course is just a prelude to more Ferris nonsense (he cranks it out, I shoot it full of holes – the circle thus remains unbroken)…

With hearings on the firings of eight U.S. attorneys and an Iraqi withdrawal showdown in the Senate, this wouldn't seem like the time to extol the virtues of divided government.

Yet Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) has been doing just that in interviews this week, repeating what he has been saying since Republicans lost control of Congress in November:

"Divided government presents a unique opportunity to tackle some of the intractable issues with considerable political fallout."

I suppose it “presents a unique opportunity” because you guys couldn’t do your jobs on behalf of the majority of this country under “united” Repug government, but perhaps it’s impolite of me to point that out, though I admit that I am, after all, just a filthy, unkempt liberal blogger when you get down to it (so despised by Tim Russert, among others).

He points to the Social Security reforms passed in the '80s, when Republicans had the White House and Democrats controlled Congress, and the welfare reform of the 1990s, when Democrats had the presidency and the GOP had Capitol Hill.

Ferris has a bit of a point here – a bit – as noted here and here, but I don’t think anyone should be crowing about those two developments. The Social Security compromise in the ‘80s was a stopgap measure at best, and the “welfare reform” of the ‘90s succeeded in throwing more people off the roles to the point where about 50 percent of those eligible were able to obtain benefits as opposed to 80 or 90 percent previously (I have not been able to obtain data as to exactly how many people displaced were able to find job paying a non-poverty wage).

And when he says intractable issues, he's serious. McConnell says this is the "perfect time" to tackle immigration reform and fix Social Security.

"By the next election, the majority is going to want to say it accomplished some things," he said. "Immigration and Social Security need to be addressed. They involve considerable risk, and they can only be done by a divided government. . . .

"If they prove difficult politically, [Democrats] can do what they're accustomed to doing: Blame it on Bush."

Gee, that’s a conciliatory sentiment from someone so interested in working with “divided government, “ isn’t it? I mean, it’s not like Dubya and the Repugs have ever demonized Democrats, have they?

But more to the point, I’m not going to trot out more numbers stating that the majority of the people of this country support some path to citizenship for illegal/undocumented/whatever workers if these people do what they’re supposed to do. Republicans are typically dreaming if they hope to pass “immigration reform” without it. And Social Security should be tabled for the next president, and if that person isn’t serious about eliminating the $90,000 limit on earnings subject to withholding, then it should be tabled for the president after that.

McConnell's skills as a leader are drawing praise,

As witnessed by his previous remark, no doubt.

...and even across the aisle they're respected.

"He understands the rules very well," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.). "He's a very fierce partisan and an effective advocate for the Republican position."

Again, somehow “fierce partisan” doesn’t equate with someone interested in conciliation to me.

Part of that effectiveness comes from respect within his own caucus. McConnell has been in the Senate since 1985. His predecessor as party leader, Bill Frist, was in only his second term when elected to lead the Republican senators. More important, McConnell "is not running for president or any other office," said Don Stewart, the senator's communications director. "His primary goal is helping his colleagues."

Effectiveness also comes from understanding his party's limits in the Senate ("they get to set the agenda, and we get to react to it") and its potential ("a minority of 49 is nowhere near irrelevant").

"With 41 of our 49, we can shape legislation," he says, "but if we think it's really bad, we can kill it."

The GOP "shaped" the minimum-wage increase the Senate passed last month by insisting on tax cuts for small businesses. The Democratic-controlled House, which had initially passed a minimum-wage increase without tax cuts, followed the Senate's lead.

Sadly true – the cost of not having a bigger Democratic majority in the Senate.

On McConnell's "kill" list is the Employee Free Choice Act, passed by the House earlier this month. The bill would allow for union certification once a majority of workers signed cards authorizing a union. No secret-ballot election would be needed.

"We've conceded for 200 years that it is essential to a free election to cast votes in private," McConnell says. "So my goal there is to simply say no."

This takes you to a post by Paul Pimentel of the Sheet Metal Workers Union, who blogged this while debate proceeded on the EFCA in the U.S. House prior to passage (including these excerpts)…

(Democratic Rep. George) Miller (of CA) takes a pre-emptive shot at the naysayers who are looking to continue the precedents set by our nation’s broken labor laws. He states there will be concerns about secret ballots and that it is an issue of significant disagreement - but that the record will show that there is no secret but long and negative history of coercion under the status quo. Under the present manner there is an extremely coercive environment and that the secret ballot concludes a system which is patently unfair.

…

(Republican Rep. Phil Kline) claims that nobody should know how you vote when you’re organizing, but does not cite any examples of how one on one meetings are used by union avoidance experts to determine this under duress.

Saying that the EFCA only denies the right to a secret ballot ignores the reality that the legislation is trying to correct and is ultimately nothing more than a Republican talking point.

However, he's hoping for more significant achievements.

McConnell won't give details but says Republican senators have been meeting "intensely" on a comprehensive immigration bill that covers "border security to guest workers to a sensible way to deal with the people already here that's not connected to some fast track to citizenship."

I’ll believe that when I see it.

Manley, Reid's spokesman, says immigration is a priority for Democrats as well, and expects a bill on the Senate floor in early May. However, he cautions that "the only way to get a bill done is if there's more leadership from the White House."

"The Senate passed a comprehensive bill last year, 55-45, and I'm sure we can pass one in a Democratic Senate," McConnell says.

Social Security will be tougher, and here McConnell wants to focus on process first. He would like to see a "structure" composed of members of Congress and the administration who design a fix that could be presented to the Senate for an up-or-down vote.

"In my view," he says, "that's the only way to have a chance to fix Social Security. If we don't have the process right, we won't get the substance."

As I noted above, you guys don’t deserve a chance to do either at this point (not blaming the Dems, but it’s pointless to try anything on this without an advocate for working people in the White House…God willing we’ll see that day again).

Until those battles are joined, and despite his vehement disagreement with his Democratic colleagues on some issues - he called this week's Iraq withdrawal vote "a prolonged and costly notice of surrender" - McConnell is clear about his mission:

"I'm hoping to achieve enough unity within the GOP most of the time to make us a positive force here in the Senate and for the country. So far, I think it's pretty clear we've been able to do that."

Oh yeah, the war…

The single most important issue facing this country at the moment, and all it rates is a casual mention at the end of Ferris’ column (oh, right – he already smeared the protestors on this last week, so I guess mentioning it again serves no useful purpose for him).

And as for McConnell, I don’t know what else I’m supposed to say or do to point out the sickening hypocrisy of people who bray “Support Our Troops” and wear their yellow bumper stickers and magnets on their luxury automobiles and do NOTHING to help them in any tangible way.

And do you know what’s at least as ridiculous? The fact that the timeline in the Senate bill for withdrawal was non-binding, and McConnell and the Repugs are still complaining!

And by the way, speaking of Iraq, here's another sound voice of reason and experience ignored by Bushco.

Tell some of the people noted here that the Iraq supplemental funding passed by the House and Senate with the withdrawal timelines constituted “a prolonged and costly notice of surrender” if you dare, you two chickenhawks!

Update 4/8/07: By the way, speaking of Mitch McConnell...