Obama's legacy "filibustered"

Introduction

My offering today is more or less an obituary – for the Presidency of Barack Obama. At this point, it’s over and nothing can raise it from the dead. When I think of what he could have done, the word “Camelot” comes to mind.

I re-read President Obama’s State of the Union address, delivered in January of 2010. Consider what he could have said, which is what I (in his place) would have said:

QUOTE [again, this is what Obama could have said]:

I want to make a personal appeal to each and every Senator here tonight to bring democracy to the US Senate by permanently eliminating the filibuster option. Our troops are dying to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. The least you can do is make the principle of One Man, One Vote a reality in the US Senate. When the threat of a filibuster means it takes 60 votes instead of a simple majority of 51 to pass a bill, those 51 Senators and the people they represent become disenfranchised.

I understand that Republicans and Democrats alike, whenever in the minority during past administrations, had found it advantageous to threaten filibuster. And this practice is quite old. It is also, and has always been, undemocratic and plainly unfair.

More importantly, the practice of filibuster is in direct violation of at least three different sections of the US Constitution:

Article V: "...no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." If, for example, a state were (like all other states) allowed two senators but (unlike the others) only one could vote, that would be a clear deprivation of "equal suffrage." And yet, if a state's senators were to find their votes rendered meaningless by a minority threatening a filibuster, that is a comparably clear deprivation of "equal suffrage."

The Fifth Amendment: "No person...[shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." When a citizen's senator finds the value of his vote diminished in Senate chambers, that citizen finds the value of his own vote similarly diminished. In other words, that citizen is being denied full and complete representation in the Senate, which in turn means that citizen has been "deprived of...[his] property [that is, the full value of his vote], without due process of law."

The Seventeenth Amendment: "...each Senator shall have one vote." That must mean, by any fair and sensible standard, that each Senator's vote is to be considered equal to each other Senator's vote. Allowing for filibusters denies this equality.

Therefore, I ask the Senate to 1) permanently eliminate the archaic, unconstitutional, undemocratic institution of the filibuster, and 2) pass a version of health care reform based on a simple majority with a scope (and this is my personal recommendation) at least as broad as that of the House.

:UNQUOTE [One more time: This is what the president could have said.]

We need a leader, not an uninspired figurehead

Ever since Barack announced his candidacy for the US presidency, I had a very bad feeling - which didn't take long to confirm. This man is simply incapable of thinking outside the box, of generating any unique and inspired approaches. He is proving to be too eager to embrace age-old traditions and ways of doing things. As he once declared in the early part of the primary season, in more or less these words: "Confrontation is not my style." [Perhaps so, but the “bipartisanship” approach didn’t work so well either.]

Okay, now what?

Let's consider two other quotes from his speech:

·       "That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight."

·       "And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.

[sigh] Obama can want all he wants, but the fact is - the filibuster will still be there to thwart him. And with his blessing, for he will do nothing - absolutely nothing - to challenge it. And you know what? If he ended up doing nothing else during his presidency, making the US Senate live up to our democratic ideals would make a fine legacy indeed. But he simply won't - can't - do it.

But if I had been elected President...

...we would have had Single Payer Health Insurance by now. And, no, I'm not just talking about reforming health care, I'm talking about the whole enchilada - SINGLE PAYER.

And to help pay for it? The money we would have saved by having removed all of our combat and non-combat forces from Iraq and Afghanistan well before June of 2009. These bold innovations were all listed in my written contract* which contained 47-points, including:

QUOTE:

POINT FIVE:

I will veto every single bill from Congress that comes my way until it passes:

a Single Payer health care reform package, which will provide medical coverage to all US citizens free of charge - that is, without co-payments, deductibles, or any requirement to pay insurance premiums. This will also establish reasonable medical billing practices and rates.

:UNQUOTE: source: The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle*

Had I been elected President, Single Payer would have come to pass. And I wouldn't have let any filibuster stop me. Barack Obama’s rhetorical skills might exceed my own, but I would have gotten the job done. Even if it meant having to embarrassing the entire US Senate during my State of the Union speech.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of the Independent Contractors’ Party

   * In 2008, I was the only presidential candidate in US history to offer a binding written contract to the voters, containing my campaign promises. If I were to violate any of those 47 promises, I would have forfeited the presidency (which was one of my 47 promises).