Last night's Senate vote approving $388 billion in spending represents a serious betrayal of Democratic interests by those party leaders who are the only defense the American Left has against Republican abuse of power - the Senate Democrats. Anchored most notably by Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid, these Democrats (Baucus, Bingaman, Breaux, Cantwell, Clinton, Daschle, Dayton, Dorgan, Feinstein, Harkin, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Mikulski, Miller, Murray, Bill Nelson, Pryor, Reid, Schumer, and Wyden) abandoned principle in favor of pork.
Reid's defection bodes poorly for the next two years. I'd like to think that the Senate Dems will actively (read: by filibustering) oppose radical anti-choice Supreme Court nominees, but this vote makes that seem unlikely. Meanwhile, I hope Geotpf is right when he/she reads Mrs. Clinton's vote against labor as a strong signal that she will not be seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2008.
Two key items in the spending bill are unacceptable to this Democrat, and should have resulted in a Democratic filibuster.
Instead they resulted in a dubious deal struck by Barbara Boxer with Bill Frist that will give the religious right another incremental victory in its war on women and a capitulation on what should be an issue as core and inviolable to Democrats as any: overtime pay.
The Chicago Tribune describes Frist's outmaneuvering of Boxer (who, to give her some credit, at least had the good sense to vote agains the bill) thus:
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) threatened to stage a filibuster over the issue but relented after receiving a commitment from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) to schedule a vote early next year on the provision. Such a vote is likely to be symbolic, however; the House is unlikely to vote for repeal. (italics mine)
Essentially, the Senate has the power to block measures, but not to enact them. For that, they need the House. So by agreeing to this choice vote next year (at which time the conservative majorities in both houses of congress will be stronger), Boxer and her Democratic colleagues effectively agreed to a change that will limit women's access to health care unbiased by political ideology. What Democrats should have done is argue for health care based on best practices, insisting that patients deserve advice from their doctors that is based on medical evaluations of all treatment options.
Democrats also tucked tail on overtime pay, an act of cowardice that will long be used by whispering Republicans as an example of why labor should owe little to Democrats:
But lawmakers, eager to avoid a confrontation with the president that might force him to cast his first veto, dropped certain controversial measures the White House opposed. These included measures that would have blocked Bush administration rules that critics say will deny overtime pay to millions of workers and make it harder to travel to Cuba.
Overtime pay is not only a core issue for organized labor, which, though not the overwhelming force it used to be, remains a HUGE source of money and logistical support for the Democratic party, but also a core issue for working class Americans. It would appear that Democrats are taking that constituency for granted - a clear mistake given the flight of working class white voters to the Republicans' pseudo-religious bigotry-lined message.
The irony in these betrayals is the reasoning behind them. Not wanting to be seen as "obstructionist", Senators voted for a measure which I have to believe they would rather not have seen pass. What they risk is not being seen as the opposition by the old Democratic constituencies we so desperately need to be winning back to our side. Especially on the overtime pay issue, last night's surrender will serve to reinforce among working class voters the idea that there is no real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on the kitchen table issues. In fact, the Democratic defections left plenty of room for enough Republicans to vote against the bill for conservatives to claim that this was a bipartisan vote, with members from both parties on both sides of the issue.