Bipartisan, yet so cynical

Like so many others, I look at the Republican Senate votes on same-sex marriage, repeal of the estate tax and, soon, a ban on flag burning, and am disappointed. Who wouldn’t be? When it comes to a cheap, emotionally driven, time-wasting vote, what Republicans offer is rarely as agile as the cheap, emotionally driven, time-wasting votes by Democrats.

The skills gap between parties is appalling.

First, Republicans are so obvious about it. They make big announcements about upcoming legislation, spend days on an issue, explaining, for instance, why a gay marriage in Massachusetts is a threat to a heterosexual one in Oklahoma. I heard Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas argue that gay marriage in the Netherlands led to out-of-wedlock births there (and, I don’t know, maybe here too because their rise were similar in both places). But the point is that the party let him go from the ridiculous to the sublimely pointless. The Netherlands?

The estate-tax debate was even more interesting than the one about coupling because it involved money (I’m showing my age) left by the richly departed, but the GOP botched that too. Earlier, Republicans had been forced to postpone the vote because the carnage of Katrina turned up too many dead and suffering who had no estates to speak of, and then recently the party fiddled so long with outright repeal, which never had a chance, it couldn’t find a compromise, which did.

Republicans have a tougher time staging these votes because, as the majority, one of their issues could pass so they get much more attention. But look what they did to the contrived but semi-substantial debate on immigration reform, a measure designed as a two-fer: the president would take care of Republicans’ very good business friends by assuring a supply of labor and at the same time look tough on border security. Instead, party members piled on each other over amnesty and still haven’t untangled themselves.

Contrast these with the sly maneuvers from Democrats. Their all-time favorite is to try to force a vote on raising the minimum wage. Any loosely germane bill will do – worker safety, job training, unwed moms in the Netherlands. The wage amendment is proposed, they give a couple of quick speeches about underpaid Americans, the losing vote is recorded and the point is made.

Or Democrats will unexpectedly propose, say, a logging ban in national parks because they know environmentalists are scoring that one. Or when some tax bill comes up, you can count on a Democratic amendment that excludes those with incomes of more than $1 million and, if there is cynicism aforethought, directs the money to HeadStart or the like.

There’s no consensus-building behind these votes, no attempt to find language that actually could pass – the bill is just shivved in quietly, a vote comes and goes and the Republican pain is not felt until later.

That would be at election time, when the Democrats spring commercials saying, “Sen. Evil voted five times against raising the minimum wage.” “Sen. Evil wants to cut down every tree in the national forests.” And they say it with such dewy-eyed sincerity – along with the vote number for those who crave detail – that it’s entirely believable.

By satiating the needy base for the moment and during campaigns both sides can win in this practice, with one exception – when the senators are of the opposite party from the majority of their states. In a recent news article, Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Democratic Rhode Island referred to himself as “collateral damage” in the latest GOP votes. But even here Democrats do a better job than Republicans.

“The difference,” Sen. Susan Collins said recently, “is that they don’t leave their own by the wayside.” That’s because Democrats just collect the evidence and move on while Republicans make it a test of faith. Both Collins and Sen. Olympia Snowe have approval ratings in a blue state that shield them from worrying about these tactics. What seems to bother them most is the time the votes require.

Snowe said, “Both sides are very much at fault in some ways because people aren’t willing to work out their differences. … But what are we doing to suggest that we are addressing issues related to the concerns of the American people?”

That’s an excellent question, but it’s not one Congress has time for because the hottest issue this week with which to score points is the war in Iraq. Democrats previously tried various versions of getting the troops out now or soon or as soon as possible, etc. Thursday, Senate Republicans broke their habit of being clumsy and executed an impressive reverse spin move: They held a vote on withdrawing troops by the end of year and dared Democrats to support it. Only six did.

Democrats say they’ll be back with an improved version of their own bill. Republicans will be ready with help from their House counterparts, who on Friday supported a resolution that “declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq.” Michigan Republican Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, a supporter of the war, told The Washington Post he found the resolution “strategically nebulous and morally obtuse.”

Does that mean you’re winning?

Todd Benoit is the editorial page editor of the Bangor Daily News.