Jack & Jill Politics

"19" That's the number of Republican state legislators in South Carolina who have gone on the record to call for Gov. Mark Sanford to step aside in the wake of his disappearance and a series of admissions of dalliances outside of his marriage.

In addition to the 19 members of the state legislature calling for his ouster, six newspapers -- the Greenville News, the Rock Hill Herald, the Aiken Standard, the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, the Orangeburg Times and Democrat and the Charlotte Observer -- have also opined that Sanford's time leading the state is up.

Even Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C) seems to have turned the corner on Sanford, telling Fox & Friends this morning that "a lot of us are talking to him behind the scenes in hopes that he'll make the right decision about what needs to be done."

What all of the above means is that critical mass is rapidly being reached for a Sanford resignation.

As we wrote yesterday, Sanford almost certainly would have survived until the end of his term had he not granted an "emotional" (kiss of political death) interview with the Associated Press.

What Sanford did in that interview was turn the debate from one that was beginning to center on Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer's readiness for the office -- a topic explored brilliantly by Phil "Bring the Ruckus" Rucker in today's Post -- back into a conversation about how a man who had misled his family and the people of South Carolina multiple times could remain in office.

Sanford's interview with the AP amounted to a political kamikaze mission that seems to suggest that the operative question now is not if he will resign but when he will resign.

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats are about to reach the magical threshold of 60 votes, allowing them in theory to sweep aside Republican delaying tactics. But the arrival of that 60th vote, in the person of Al Franken of Minnesota, is not likely to make the party’s very real difficulties in advancing contentious legislation disappear.

The persistent absences of two veteran Democratic senators because of serious illness, the varied ideological makeup of the Democratic caucus and the willingness of individual senators to break with the party if they do not get their legislative way make the new mathematical might of the Democrats a bit illusory.

“We have 60 votes on paper,” Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said Wednesday in an interview. “But we cannot bulldoze anybody; it doesn’t work that way. My ca

the election of Al Franken is going to change some of the dynamics in Washington DC... Franken's election merely provides the Democrats with a theoretical immunity to filibusters...Franken's election strengthens Obama and gives him new momentum at a critical time... merely reaching the goal of sixty members of the Democratic Caucus doesn't guarantee that the filibuster is a thing of the past. Two Democrats have major health issues that limits their time in the Senate, and many Democratic senators have major differences with the president's agenda... There are different kinds of politicians. Most politicians come from very safe districts. A huge percentage of incumbents are reelected in every election cycle, and most of them are challenged only nominally, if at all. What makes the gears grind in Washington is not the overwhelming majority of safe politicians. It is the handful of vulnerable politicians who decide what is possible and what is not possible in Congress. And vulnerable politicians are predisposed against change. In effect, they are temperamentally conservative. Every significant vote that they take could spell the end of their political career. And the Democrats have dozens of these timid creatures in Congress. How does Al Franken and reaching 60 votes in the Senate affect them?

Basically, Al Franken screws them, plain and simple. A timid, vulnerable, conservative Democrat wants anything but to be put on the line in a contentious and significant vote. Their first instinct is to figure out if a piece of legislation is going to pass. If it is not going to pass, they want to make sure their Democratic base is happy, and they will vote for it. If it is going to pass, and it is either going to anger big donors or become a painful campaign issue, they will vote against it. In each case, they are ignoring the merits and voting to create for themselves the least amount of pain.

A third category exists where it is their decision which is decisive in determining whether something will pass. This is their least favorite circumstance, because it means they cannot avoid angering their base if they vote against it, but the business community will not give them a wink-and-a-nod-pass on it if they vote for it.

So long as the Republicans had 41 votes in the Senate, the timid, vulnerable, conservative Democrats could get away with voting for progressive legislation that wouldn't pass and against progressive legislation that did. But now that the Democrats have sixty votes, every single bill the Democrats introduce should pass. Every nominee should be confirmed. And each Democrat that votes 'nay' on an issue is giving the Republicans the ability to stop the president's agenda. They can no longer hide. And that is that last place they want to be.

A big part of this changed dynamic is related to visibility. The Senate has cloture votes all the time. The 110th Congress set the record for cloture votes. And timid, vulnerable, conservative Democrats voted with the Republicans all the time to sustain filibusters. But these were mainly low-visibility votes because the Democrats' votes were not decisive. Even Democratic activists have a hard time maintaining a level of outrage about a vote that had no material effect on the outcome. It is only when a Democrat casts the deciding vote that sustains a filibuster that people really stand up and notice. But, guess what?

With sixty members in the Democratic caucus, every single time any Democratic senator votes against cloture, they are casting the decisive vote to kill the president's (and the Senate leadership's) agenda. It doesn't matter if 10 Democrats vote against cloture. In that case, each and every one of them is guilty of casting the decisive vote that obstructs passage of a bill (because Vice-President Biden can cast the tie-breaker in a 50-50 tie).

There is no longer any cover, because the assumption is that all Democrats should be willing to at least give the president and their own leadership the benefit of an up or down vote on their priority legislation. They cannot escape responsibility and consequences if they oppose the Senate calendar. This is the major change that Al Franken brings to Washington DC.

Senators like Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson like to thwart the Democratic agenda quietly. They reassure their corporate donors by voting against anything that might threaten their interests unless it is already a foregone conclusion that it will pass. But they can't do that anymore. They can't get free votes against the progressive agenda that will be forgiven by both sides of the issue. They must now choose between their corporate masters and their fear of Republican campaign smears on the one hand, and the president's agenda on the other hand. All wiggle room is gone. There are no more free votes.

So, what's it going be? Who really runs this country, when you come down to it? Keep your eye on timid, vulnerable, conservative Democrats in the Senate. They will let you know shortly.

Is the press too cozy or shut out?

By CAROL E. LEE | 07/02/09 7:55 AM

Is FLOTUS getting the soft touch from the female, African-American beat reporters who cover her? Howard Kurtz explores the idea.

Kurtz notes that the NYT’s Rachel Swarns, The Washington Post's Robin Givhan, Newsweek's Allison Samuels, the AP’s Darlene Superville of the Associated Press and POLITICO’s Nia-Malika Henderson might have “a richer cultural understanding of [Michelle] Obama as a trailblazer,” and most of them“write with enthusiasm, in some cases even admiration, about the first lady as a long-awaited role model for black women.”

But that hasn’t helped them gain access to the first lady, Kurtz writes – or even an acknowledgement of their presence from her as they huddle behind a rope at one of her events.

While Kurtz says it may be too early to tell if FLOTUS has nonetheless gotten favorable coverage from reporters who identify with her, the first lady’s office told him that the beat writers, as well as CBS's Katie Couric, will each get a sit-down with FLOTUS by the fall.