Political Heat

The year 2009 was definitely a lot of things: a year of change (the first non-white president and a near-filibuster-proof Senate majority), a year of denial (with many refusing to believe the president was indeed born American to refusing the democratic mandate for health reform), and a year of frustrations (health care compromises, bank bailouts, and much much more). Most of all, 2009 was a year of obstruction -- mostly from the conservative side of things, with a few surprises from the center-left as well. TEA Party protesters rose up to call for an end to government growth (albeit in an extremist sort of way), and Republicans continued their unprecedented number of filibusters. Centrists (like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson) joined their conservative colleagues at times, stopping important legislation from holding any significance. Sure, there were some progressive "victories" as well that deserve recognition, that were hard-fought by Democrats who knew the importance of sta...

An interesting debate is raging on the internet involving the frustrations associated with the U.S. Senate rule on filibusters. As it stands now, a filibuster can only be ended by a vote of 60 Senators in favor of cloture. Though in the past it had been significantly harder to break a filibuster (at one time requiring 67 votes), the practice of stalling and effectively tabling measures through the filibuster has risen significantly, used in recent years by obstructionist Republicans an unprecedented number of times . There are some who are calling for an all-out abolition of the practice, saying that a majority voice in the Senate should be sufficient enough to pass legislation. There are others who believe that it should remain intact but with substantial reform. Still others believe that it should remain as is, citing that liberals used the filibuster when conservatives were in power just three years ago (though significantly less frequent). The filibuster, it's interesting to no...

Joseph Lieberman is one influential U.S. Senator, despite having no official party allegiance. A former vice presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, Lieberman lost a primary challenge in 2006 but won as an independent in the general election of that year. As an independent, Lieberman still caucuses with the Democratic majority -- though you wouldn't know it judging from some of the controversial stances he takes against the party's main policies. His latest escapade involves his stance on health care reform. Though a lifelong Democrat, Lieberman opposed the idea of a public option, and in recent weeks suggested that he wouldn't oppose a Republican-led filibuster to oppose it. When other moderate Senators suggested the same idea, a group of ten Democratic Senators devised a compromise that would allow Americans to buy-into non-profit but private health insurance plans, with people over 55 but under 65 being able to buy-into Medicare, the national insurance program ...

With Christmastime fast approaching, most Americans have dedicated their time towards finding gifts for loved ones, decorating the house, and making preparations for the all-important Christmas dinner. For many conservative pundits, however, Christmastime signals a time of desperation, of placing blame on those dirty liberals who like to ruin the holiday season, and of inciting fear among otherwise decent Americans who don't want their religious rights violated. Even Congressional Republicans, who earlier this year railed Democrats for frivolous bills, are pushing a resolution in the House calling for the holiday of Christmas to be respected (as if it hasn't had the past month and a half dedicated towards it already). One conservative mayor even mused that Barack Obama's speech on Afghanistan was purposefully scheduled to knock Charlie Brown's Christmas Special off the air . Though quieter than previous years, the campaign against the supposed "War on Christmas...

Ten (maybe) Senate Democrats late Tuesday night came to a consensus on health care reform, with major compromises and deals worked out including the removal of the so-called public option. The group of ten settled on a proposed deal with several broad components. First, a not-for-profit private exchange would be set up for those without health care (replacing the public option plan), and would be managed and heavily regulated by the Office of Personnel Management (which currently overseas a similar program for federal employees' insurance plans). Second, those between the ages of 55 to 64 would be able to buy into Medicare coverage, greatly expanding the program for those who represent the age-group most affected by the health care crisis today. Third, the public option would reportedly remain in the bill but would only go into effect through a trigger -- that is, only if private insurers don't fix things themselves within a set number of years (this might not be the case, how...

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint is holding up the confirmation of Errol Southers to head the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), leaving the agency without a leader. An important post that ensures the security of all Americans traveling across the country and abroad, scrutiny over who will run the TSA is well-deserved...except over something as mundane as collective bargaining rights for TSA employees. That's right -- your security is being held hostage by a Republican who has a beef with unions. DeMint believes that, by allowing TSA employees to organize and bargain collectively their contracts, security at airports and other areas prone to attack could be put at greater risk. "Collective bargaining would standardize things across the country, make it much less flexible, much harder for the agency to adapt to changing threats around the world," DeMint said recently . But other agencies that deal with issues of national security -- such as Border Control and the Fede...

Last night, President Barack Obama announced his official plan for the war in Afghanistan . In his remarks, Obama told the nation (before a live audience of West Point cadets) that 30,000 more troops were needed to stabilize the region, with the goal being a complete withdrawal of forces beginning July of 2011. " I do not make this decision lightly ," the president told the cadets. "I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake." His plan is likely to draw complaints from both the left and the right, though it may appeal to centrists. It contains elements that both sides would want -- and that both sides will undoubtedly hate. Many liberal Democratic lawmakers are sure to be displeased with the troop buildup. Most of those on the left opposed the buildup of forces during the Iraq war (commonly known as the "surge"); many felt that policy prolonged our presence in the beleaguered nation. A buildup in Afghanistan, then, is only gu...