America is at war with al Qadea. It's nonsensical, but true--at least in Versailles. And since we're at war with al Qadea, that makes Obama a wartime President, which up until Obama's inauguration a year ago has meant that the President gets a lot deference from the opposition party. Now, however, in what Josh Marshall has flagged as a "shark-jumping moment," Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) has placed a blanket hold on all of Obama's nominations, just to get him some pork.
Others doubt that it is a shark-jumping moment. (How can you jump the shark 9 years after stealing a presidential election?) But there's a good point here, as Jonathan Chait notes, and Paul Waldman elaborates:
This could be, as Josh Marshall suggests, a shark-jumping moment for the GOP. But I doubt it....
But now this kind of stuff barely raises an eyebrow, particularly among a press corps that has gotten used to the idea that Republicans play hardball, Democrats don't do anything about it because they're wimps, and therefore the latest outrage is barely worth taking note of. Jonathan Chait explains why this is possible:
Many of the changes in American politics over the past three decades have involved the two parties slowly doing away with social norms that preventing them from using every tool at their disposal. The Senate minority could filibuster every single bill the majority proposed, but you just didn't do that, until you did. You could use a House-Senate conference to introduce completely new provisions into a bill, but you just didn't do that, until you did. (The topic became common in the Bush administration.) The possibility was always there to use endless amendments to filibuster a reconciliation bill. But nobody thought to do that until Republicans floated the tactic this week.
The "hold" is a now similar tool to what the filibuster was forty years ago. It's a sparingly-used weapon meant to signal an unusually intense preference. A Congressional scholar reports that putting a blanket hold on all the president's nominees has never been done before. But there's no rule that says you can't. It's just not done, until it is.
The main thing that keeps those kinds of norms in place isn't the good will of all involved -- it's the understanding that if you violate them, there will be some kind of cost. The problem today is that there is no foreseeable cost for this kind of move.
And the idea that the Senate Dems would impose any sort of cost is, of course, completely ludicrous. Which leaves it up to the President. Ordinarily, I'm opposed to strengthening the power of the President. But by the standards of Versailles itself, what Shelby has just done--trying to cripple Obama's ability to govern--is tantamount to treason--giving aid and comfort the enemy in a time of war, and I'd like to see him arrested for it.
That would get some attention.
Waldman argues that the Senate Dems should impose a political cost:
If there's no practical cost, the only thing left to stop them from filibustering everything, or putting a blanket hold on every nominee to extort some pork for Alabama, is the possibility of a political cost. At this point, that's up to the Democrats to impose. It would require a little bit of toughness: they'd have to have everyone go out and say, over and over so it would take over the news, that Richard Shelby and his Republican friends are despicable extortionists who will sabotage the operation of the United States government for the sake of some pork-barrel earmarks. They could also fit it into a larger narrative about nihilistic Republicans who care so little about the country's fate that they will do virtually anything to subvert the administration, no matter what the cost, if they think it will gain them some advantage or some pork. If Democrats made enough noise about it, Shelby would back down, and it might even convince Republicans to think twice the next time one of them considers undertaking this kind of extortion.
Is that something Democrats are willing to do? Or are they afraid it would seem impolite?
Is he kidding? Senate Democrats aren't even willing to think of doing anything, much less actually doing it.
The idea he offers is perfect sensible, of course. Which is why there's absolutely zero chance that the Senate Dems would even think of doing such a thing.
In contrast, arresting Shelby for treason is not the least bit sensible. In fact, it's just the sort of thing that Shelby would do if he were President. It's the exact presidential analogue of what he's just done.
STATE BLOGS
