Last week, the Rachel Maddow show took a look at an emerging coalition of Senators which she named "Conservadems." Led by Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, this pseudo-centrist caucus seemed to broadly threaten to "torpedo" President Obama's domestic agenda with their patented brand of "hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit."
I highlighted the Great Foundational Works of Sen. Ben Nelson, who doesn't understand what stimulus monies allocated for school construction do, and can't be bothered to fight for them, or to explore the rationale behind the allocation of said funds.
Well, I suppose the accusations of "conservademitude" stung, because today Bayh, along with Senators Tom Carper and Blanche Lincoln have penned an editorial in the Washington Post, which presumes to make the necessary amends.
As moderate leaders, it is not our intent to water down the president's agenda. We intend to strengthen and sustain it. Moderation is not a mathematical process of finding the center for its own sake. Practical solutions are practical because they offer our best chance to make a difference in people's lives today without forcing our children to pick up the tab tomorrow.
A challenge for the troika, then: explain in detail how you would strengthen, say...the White House's current cap-and-trade proposal. Would you help to design a mighty revenue-generating/carbon emissions limiting policy by using your "one-foot-in-each-aisle" approach to bring the loyal GOP opposition into the fold? Or would you, as I suspect, use wishy-washy centrism to ensure the creation of a policy that falls short of efficacy, but gets a ton of Senate votes?
Do I need an answer to that? In the next paragraph, we see that the Bayh coalition's concerns are with procedure, not policy:
The stakes are too high for Democrats to fear a policy debate. Such debates produce better legislation. On nearly all important votes, a supermajority of 60 senators will be needed to pass legislation. Without Democratic moderates working to find common ground with reasonable Republicans, the president's agenda could well be filibustered into oblivion.
It's a bit infuriating to see the 60-vote supermajority constantly rearing its head as the new standard for Senate lawmaking. Doubly so, when you consider that it's become completely acceptable to view the threat of a filibuster as a gridlocking mechanism. The higher standard for passage is not yielding better policy. This is why people like Matt Yglesias would like to see some significant filibuster reform -- a move that would no doubt be filibustered!
RELATED:
Building Bridges on The Hill [Washington Post]
Sens. Bayh, Carper, Lincoln Commit Themselves to Obama [Matt Yglesias]
PREVIOUSLY, on the HUFFINGTON POST
ConservaDems: Maddow Digs Into The New "Centrist" Caucus (VIDEO)
[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]