The Vietnam trade bill (earlier piece) is a skirmish before the upcoming battle for fast track renewal (a key issue for 2007 in Congress - earlier piece).

Sirota is fuming at Brer Baucus, who is a leader of the free trade party within the Dems - plus being Finance Committee chairman in the 110th.

The earlier vote in the House on the Vietnam bill (Dems split 90-94 against) suggests that both Baucus and the forces of protection have their work cut out to united the Congressional party.

(The terms in italics can't be taken literally, of course. The free-traders love pro-US protection and (my suspicion) the protectionists wouldn't exactly want to return to Smoot-Hawley.)

There's more...

Here are some interesting quotes that get more interesting when juxaposed together:

Hartford Courant, August 18, 2006

"Sen. Reid left no doubt in my mind that I would retain my seniority and committee assignments within the Senate Democratic Caucus should I be re-elected," Lieberman said Thursday, "and that has been confirmed to me by several other members of the Democratic caucus."

Firedoglake, June 12, 2006

So I asked him -- if Joe Lieberman leaves the party, what will happen with regard to his Committee appointments? He said he'd met with Ned twice and liked him a lot.  And as to the opposition we've been mounting against Joe?  Reid said it to me twice, and he chose his words very carefully:

It's important for people to know that their actions have consequences.

Ryan Lizza, The New Republic, August 12, 2006

They downplay the national implications of the race and are eager to move on. "We'll put the focus back on Bush," says a senior Senate aide. "You know, 'The primary was a referendum on Bush, and so Republicans have a lot to fear.'" They also reject the idea that the primary changes the Iraq debate: "Our Iraq  policy has been driven by [Harry] Reid and [Carl] Levin. To be honest, they  could give a rat's ass about the blogs. In other words, these are policy-based  decisions, and aren't driven by the politics of Connecticut or anywhere else."

I like Harry Reid as Senate minority leader.  I was one of the first people in the progressive netroots to embrace his tenure as minority leader, because of the pugnacity that all of us love.  Reid hasn't disappointed in many respects - he's really foiled Frist when he wants to, and has prevented a fair number of horrible pieces of legislation from coming through the door.

At the same time, I fear that it's become evident that Reid is a fairly weak leader, and may not really share our values as progressives.  His weakness isn't really a character issue, per se, it's more that the Senate is a creature that doesn't like to be led.  Reid is a strong guy, when he wants to be.  But I just am beginning to doubt that he's really with us when it counts.

Let's put aside the Alito vote, which Reid didn't whip with any sense of priority, if he did any whipping at all.  Or the Bankruptcy Bill, which Reid actually voted for.  I want to focus on his sense of where political power lies, and how he responds to the progressive movement.  There was an excellent insider diary a few weeks ago on an energy bill that came through which opened up offshore drilling in the Gulf Coast.  Long story short, it was a horrible right-wing bill, but Reid whipped for it out of deference to Mary Landrieu and Bill Nelson, neither of whom it will actually help.  In supporting this legislation, Reid allowed right-wing Democratic members to dictate policy, even though it's fairly clear that they will sell us out on key votes.  The Republicans make sure to let their moderates vote against them on unimportant throwaway votes, while forcing them to remain with them on key votes.  Reid often does the opposite.  This is not necessarily because he is a bad strategist; it could be because Reid isn't actually a progressive, and shares the worldview of the centrists.

I'm ok with political disagreements.  What's worrisome is how Reid doesn't follow through on his own key moves, like when he shut down the Senate to force a review of Iraq intelligence.  Bold move, but we're still waiting for that review.  In the talking points sheet Reid's office emailed out, the following sentence reveals what we now know to be false: "We will not let up until America gets answers." Once again, bold move, but no follow-up.

This characteristic, of hinting at darkly strong moves towards a progressive stance, and then not following through when push comes to shove, seems to be somewhat habitual when caucus politics is involved.  That's how it is on Lieberman.  Reid tried to keep Lamont out of the primary and endorsed Lieberman on the condition that Lieberman would stay a Democrat.  Lieberman violated that condition.  And now Reid has insured that Lieberman wouldn't face any penalties for running to the right and stabbing the party in the face by promising that Lieberman will keep his seniority.

I hope Reid reconsiders his support of Lieberman, tacit or no.  It's just not appropriate for a Democratic leader to offer Senatorial perks to someone who is in Lieberman's position.  It weakens the party, it weakens the country, and it weakens Reid's possible status as minority leader next cycle.  It is good for no one except Lieberman.

And at this point, private assurances or hints aren't enough.  Reid needs to publicly repudiate what Lieberman said, that Lieberman has been promised the right to keep his seniority.  Reid needs to come out and say that no such promise has been made, or that no such promise will be honored.

There's more...

now this is a look inside the sausage factory - matt

Following up on Matt's excellent post on the peculiar dynamics of the Gulf of Mexico drilling bill currently being considered in the Senate and trying to give a better context as he requested later, I think it's worth looking at this bill to see how leadership functions, or doesn't, in the Senate.  Reid is playing a high-stakes, risky strategy with Dem 06 messaging and with the Country's checkbook.

There's more...

Yesterday, Matt raised a fascinating question - essentially a political one - about the current tussle in Congress over offshore oil and gas drilling.

But, in considering the question, I found myself inexorably drawn to consider the wider ramifications. Which lead slap bang into the policy details - on which I have no expertise whatsoever.

It's a problem for journos, polisci guys and bloggers alike: how to grasp the political import without needing to understand the substance?

Because, frankly, as soon as you get into the substance, chances are, you drown.

There's more...

I blogged last week about a new Energy bill snaking its way through Congress.  The politics of the bill are related to Bill Nelson's reelection bid, and a desire for more drilling in the Gulf on the part of a whole host of Senators.  There's a weird institutional conflict brewing, and I don't quite know how to read it.

Normally, compromise is a way of life in the Senate, which causes problems because Republicans tend to get what they want anyway in the Conference Committee that reconciles bills between the House and Senate.  It's not unheard of for a bill to look totally different after emerging from conference, which makes a mockery of the Senate.  For some reason Democrats have accepted this meekly.

Bill Nelson isn't, apparently, and wants assurances he won't be screwed in conference.

Florida Sen. Bill Nelson said he will vote against an oil-and-gas drilling compromise this week unless his colleagues promise not to alter the proposal later to match a more sweeping House bill.

Nelson, a Democrat who is running for re-election in November, filed his unusual request Monday evening, even though he supports the bill that opens much of the eastern Gulf of Mexico to exploration -- with significant protections for Florida's west coast.

"If the Senate position, providing protections for Florida's economy and environment, is at risk in negotiations with House members, then I can't support sending something over to them for a series of closed-door negotiations," Nelson said in a statement.

"During these negotiations, supporters of more drilling easily could adopt their own horrendous plan to allow oil and gas rigs just several miles off the nation's shorelines."

This is very interesting and unexpected.  Senators are trying to force their own moderation into a much more extreme House run by such laudable environmentalists as Representative Pombo.

Sorry for geeking out on institutional conflict.  I'm curious as to what's happening, and anyone who could provide some more context would earn my geeky gratitude.

There's more...