Skip to main content

Bi-Partisan-Gang-of-Six
The word compromise is in the air quite a bit. As we approach three years of what may be President Barack Obama’s first term, we have learned that Republicans have very little interest in cooperating with Democrats.

Among the ideas that have been tossed around to deal with deficit and debt problems is the establishment of watchdog bi-partisan panels. Such panels have traditionally been an easy way to kick the can further down the road and to accomplish little.

However, there is now the danger that bi-partisan panels could reach accord and greatly influence policy. I say danger because what used to be bi-partisan panels of Republicans and Democrats have now become panels of Republicans and Republican-lites.

The so-called bi-partisan Gang of Six, which  was active in deficit discussions, consists of three Republicans [Saxby Chambliss (GA), Mike Crapo (ID), and Tom Coburn (OK)] and three Democrats [Kent Conrad (ND), Dick Durbin (IL), and Mark Warner (VA)].

Ratings by the progressive Americans for Democratic Action provides a single standard to measure the leanings of all six senators. The issues that they measure include:

A senator who is very liberal would receive a rating of 100%; one who is very conservative would receive a rating of 0%. Here’s how the six members rate:

Republicans:                                                         Democrats:

Chambliss................. 0%                                     Conrad........................85%
Crapo....................... 0%                                     Durbin........................95%
Coburn..................... 5%                                     Warner........................80%

Average...................... 2%                                  Average......................87%
Deviation from 50%...48%                                 Deviation from 50% ... 37%

These numbers are illustrative, though not necessarily startling. On the surface, the Democrats are eleven percentage points closer than the Republicans to what would be the dividing line between progressive and conservative.

However, as frequently is the case, the devil is in the details. Votes on twenty key measures are used to rate the senators. However, these can be misleading. Take health care. There was no up or down vote on the single-payer plan favored by Bernie Sanders and others. There was not even a vote on the proposed public option provision for health care. So while the three Democrats all voted for H.R. 4872. which became the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, none had to step up to the plate on real liberal provisions, such as single-payer or the public option. Yet the three Republicans all voted ‘No’ on a very milk-toast health care bill, because they saw it as too liberal.

Further evidence of the overall conservative leaning of the Senate is that in 2010, five senators had perfect 100% ratings using the ADA criteria. Nineteen had 0% ratings. In comparison, one year earlier (2009), sixteen senators had 100% ratings, and only one had a 0% rating.

The evidence demonstrates that it’s wise politics for Republicans to suggest bi-partisan panels because they will lean considerably more to the right than the left. Current behavior of Democrats, including the President, indicates that they will not even consider real progressive legislation, so we have no way of knowing how liberal they might be.

Until such point as Democrats show more of a spine in at least addressing progressive issues, we would do well to be very wary of any proposal from either Republicans or Democrats to create bi-partisan commissions.

Cross-posted on Occasional Planet.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  They don't just seem to lean right, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ahl

    they do lean right.

    Here's the problem: You have a hard core group that will refuse to budge on certain key issues.

    On the other side, you might think that you have liberal and moderate pragmatists, who will work to get a deal done. You would be wrong.

    With Obama doing the choosing, you won't ever see a Sanders, a Harkin, or even a Durbin on the committee. They will be conservative Dems, instructed on how quickly they should cave in.

    This committee system will fail, or will screw the people even worse.

    The idea of cutting domestic spending during a deep recession - that's the hallmark of Obama, and that is representative of insane political/economic reasoning.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 06:34:54 AM PDT

    •  In response (0+ / 0-)

      I don't know if President Obama listens to any progressives, but this would be a good time to try to influence him to ensure that there are real Democrats [progressives] on the panel.  It may be that it's up to Reid and Pelosi.

  •  As I understand it (0+ / 0-)

    McConnell will appoint the Rs and Reid will appoint the Ds for the Senate side while Boehner  will appoint the Rs and Pelosi will appoint the Ds on the House side.  I think most of us can see what will happen down the road.  

  •  All things tend Rightward in the good ol' USA . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ActivistGuy

    . anymore.  The old right wing is the new center.

  •  That's to be expected (0+ / 0-)

    When the two parties that make up for "bipartisanship" are one center-right party and one hard right party, you can't expect such fodder to tilt any way except right.

    Fight the Shock Doctrine--abolish the "debt ceiling"!

    by ActivistGuy on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 07:17:41 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site