Can Harry Reid Deliver?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid already had a lot of things on his plate to get done in the Senate this year, even before last week's news broke. Now he's facing two more big issues in the midst of an election year (and in the midst of a fight for his own political life in Nevada) -- a new nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, and an upcoming confirmation battle over a Supreme Court nomination. Given that Harry Reid's Senate is not exactly known for moving with blinding speed (to be fair, few Senates are), one has to wonder whether Harry Reid can deliver on some of these big issues before the midterm elections or not.
The three major issues which Reid presently faces are the "New START" treaty, the Supreme Court nomination battle, and Wall Street reform. There are other issues just as large (and just as confrontational) which conventional Washington wisdom has already decided Reid isn't even going to tackle in an election year (comprehensive immigration reform and a new energy policy, to name two of the biggest), although it must be said that politics is always fluid, so this conventional wisdom may prove wrong by November. Add to this the regular issues which the Senate must deal with (such as the budget), as well as pressing political problems like jobs legislation, and it's pretty easy to see that Reid faces an overwhelming list of things to do this year.
Which means that a lot of the focus in Washington this year is going to be centered squarely on the Senate. Nancy Pelosi's House has shown that it is much quicker and more productive, passing dozens of good bills (many with widespread Republican support), which have then done nothing but languish in the Senate. This backlog adds even further to Reid's "to do" list. To be fair, the House does not have such constitutional duties as ratifying treaties or confirming judges. Because the Senate does, and because it faces one of each right now, it is just going to shrink the available time for the Senate to act on legislative issues this year.
Just considering the three highest-priority items on that list currently, it's easy to see how they could eat up most (or all) of the Senate's time between now and Election Day. Wall Street reform is the first of these scheduled for a showdown on the Senate floor. And -- much like the health reform bill -- this is a huge and complicated issue, with plenty of room for watering things down and inserting loopholes in the fine print. Which is exactly what both Republicans and Democrats who have sold their soul to the banking industry are going to attempt. If they don't kill the bill outright, that is, or delay it endlessly until Reid cries "Uncle!" and shelves the whole debate.
To be blunt, Reid's performance in the health reform struggle does nothing to inspire confidence that the donnybrook over Wall Street reform will be any different. To Reid's credit, on health reform, he did finally deliver. About nine months late, but given the constraints he was working under (especially when Democrats lost the filibuster-proof majority they theoretically had), putting anything at all on the president's desk was indeed a big achievement. But this time, we don't have those extra nine months. And the constraints Reid faced then have not gone away. Which leaves passage of any meaningful Wall Street reform a real open question, at this point.
The next big, contentious issue on Reid's schedule will be shepherding President Obama's Supreme Court pick through the confirmation process. This fight will be different for two reasons. The first is that, ultimately, it is a binary choice for senators to make -- either "yea" or "nay." Unlike a legislative battle, where changing a paragraph here or there can gain you some votes, with a court nominee you're either going to be for him or her, or against him or her -- there's no middle ground. The second reason this fight will be different is that it will have a real and concrete deadline. Justice John Paul Stevens is stepping down at the end of the Supreme Court's current term, and the Senate really is going to need to act before the next term begins -- which happens before the election. Meaning Harry Reid is going to face a deadline he won't be able to ignore. And, so far, he hasn't been all that impressive about meeting deadlines lately -- although (again, to be fair) he did manage to do so the last time he faced this situation, confirming Sonia Sotomayor in a timely enough fashion for her to join the high court before its term began last year.
The third big issue Reid faces will be the Senate exercising their constitutional duty to ratify (or reject) the New START treaty which President Obama just signed. However, there is no real deadline on treaty ratification (at least, not as far as I know -- there may be such a deadline in the language of the treaty itself). What this means is that if Harry Reid has to "punt" any of these three issues past the election itself, this is going to be the prime candidate to get put off.
The Senate returned to work today, after a two-week vacation. Or, as they officially and euphemistically call it, a "State Work Period" (even though they are fooling precisely nobody with this cheerfully Orwellian label). From today until Election Day dawns, the Senate has a further seven weeks of vacation time scheduled (so far). That's one week for Memorial Day, one week for Independence Day, and five whole weeks for the "August In D.C. Is So Hellish Month." And these are just the vacation periods scheduled so far (the "tentative" schedule currently says nothing about post-Labor Day vacations). Which is not to say that they aren't going to take a big chunk of October off, to go home and campaign their little hearts out. In the last two midterm election years (2006 and 2002), the Senate took off six weeks and three weeks, respectively. In particular, 2006 was a relaxed and leisurely year for the Senate, as they worked precisely one week in all of October and November combined (a six-week election break was followed by one week of work, then two weeks off for Thanksgiving -- nice work, if you can get it, eh?).
Taken together, the two weeks for holidays, the five weeks in August, and the (likely) four weeks or so before the election where the Senate won't be in session, the schedule leaves only a little over four months' worth of actual working time to get anything done. The Supreme Court pick is likely going to eat up roughly a month of this time, possibly more. Wall Street reform is going to take at least a month or two (and that is being wildly optimistic, I should add). Even if Reid punts on the treaty ratification, it's easy to see that the calendar is going to be an awfully tough one for Senate Democrats to get much done outside of the major issues this year. Which puts even more pressure on them to deliver on the major issues themselves, I should add.
Congressional Democrats would like to campaign this year on the things they've been able to accomplish. As well as (knock wood) an economy that is visibly getting better for people, of course. So far, the things Democrats have been able to accomplish haven't exactly resonated with the public (health care, the stimulus, etc.). Whether Democratic officeholders have anything else to put before the voters as solid Democratic accomplishments is going to hinge mostly on Reid's performance for the rest of this year.
If Harry Reid can manage to produce, he may improve his own currently-dismal re-election chances in Nevada, as well as give the Democratic voter base a reason to get enthusiastic about voting in November. But, if Reid cannot deliver, a lot of Democrats are going to be sucked down on Reid's "coattails" come Election Day. Now, obviously, there are other factors at play in this election season -- which, like all midterms, is problematic for the president's party -- but Harry Reid could either give Democrats a real boost in their chances at the polls by delivering a few big wins (and, one hopes, a whole bunch of smaller wins), or he could squander this opportunity and not provide legislative victories for Democrats to tout on the campaign trail.
Harry Reid has the rest of this year to produce some solid Senate victories. And the question remains: Can Harry Reid actually deliver? For many Democrats, the answer to this question is a whole lot more than merely academic, and may in fact mean quite a bit to their own chances in the upcoming election.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
-- Chris Weigant
I enjoy your unfailing logical perspective, and fervently hope SOMEONE in the Democrat's leadership is paying attention to you. I've almost given up on the Huffington Post, as it seems to be turning into a slightly upscale National Enquirer. Lately I've become a huge Balloon Juice fan, for their intelligent irreverency; although I still enjoy the silly tangents this site gets into (Happy Days? Really?). I guess this is just a pat on the back to keep on truckin in your sane oasis in Netdom.
Coupla provisos and quid pro quos of a wonky nature:
1) If the GOP wants to spend a few weeks working for Wall Street on C-SPAN, let them. Financial reform is far more suited to letting the GOP filibuster than HCR was because it can pass via reconciliation (unlike the Senate HCR bill).
So is cap & trade, BTW.
2) How long the Supreme battle takes is part of Obama's calculus at the moment. His first leaked short-list name was an instant hit with Senate Republican leadership. And really, this court pick won't even be able to alter the balance of the court -- that will come when Obama gets to replace one of the conservatives. So you might actually see a "quick pick" sail through the Senate.
Kevin -
You are entirely correct, although usually we get a bit loopy in August, on Hallowe'en, and around the end of the year. But random loopiness pops up every so often at other times too, mostly when Congress is out of town. Or when I have to use a phrase in the political context which I'm not sure either my older or younger readers will even understand (hence all the Fonziness of late...). Here, for instance, is the most frivolous thing I think I've ever posted here. But, hey, thanks for the kind words, they do indeed keep me going!
Osborne -
From what I hear, both sides are going to have a big field day of "pleasing the base" on the SCOTUS pick, but then it'll likely go through (after lots of smoke and noise) without an actual filibuster. This could change, but that's what the smart money seems to be on, you're right.
-CW
So, what you are saying, CW is that whether or not the will be a huge Dem massacre at the mid-terms depends solely on Harry Reid..
Ya'all can't see it, but I have this huge shit-eatin' grin on my face right now.. :D
As to Obama's SCOTUS pick....
Stevens was a complete and staunch liberal on the high court.
The GOP won't let a like-minded person be confirmed.
Logically, Obama's pick will increase the conservative leanings of the Supreme Court.
Michale.....
What *IS* it with Obama and all his bowing crap???
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100412/capt.52d493edeb0243ef84cbfc87f58f4b6a-52d493edeb0243ef84cbfc87f58f4b6a-0.jpg?x=400&y=236&q=85&sig=7ExLDMeF0GRpZtR03CoBUA--
Michale.....
So far, the things Democrats have been able to accomplish haven't exactly resonated with the public (health care, the stimulus, etc.).
And why do ya'all think that is?
Why hasn't CrapCare and Porkulus resonated with the public??
The answer is simple.
Because neither has done ANYTHING that the Obama administration had promised they would do.
As far as Porkulus goes, it didn't keep down the unemployment rate and it didn't curb exorbitant CEO bonuses...
CrapCare?? Oh where to start.. So many loopholes that allow the Insurance Companies to do whatever the hell they want. No regulation to prevent Insurance Companies from raising rates whenever they want to whatever they want. Nothing in CrapCare prevents Insurance Companies from refusing coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. And more than 3/4ths of the States preparing lawsuits and/or legislation to opt out of the mandate to purchase due to the mandate being unconstitutional.
It's easy to see why none of the Democrats want to tout their "successes"...
If they did, it would guarantee that they would be defeated in their re-election bid..
Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place...
And Democrats have only themselves to blame.. What did they expect would happen when they passed crap legislation that over 75% of the American Public was against??
This is what happens with politicians place Party before Country..
"Unit... Corp... God... Country..."
-Cpl Dawson, A FEW GOOD MEN
Don't see anything in there about "PARTY"... :D
Michale......
Stevens was a complete and staunch liberal on the high court.
Did you know Michale that Stevens was a Republican most of his life?
Did you know that when he was originally picked, he was picked because of his lack of strong political connections to either party?
Can you name something "liberal" that he did?
The other night on the news I listened to a lengthy overview of his career and he sure didn't sound "liberal". I think this "liberal" stuff is a bunch of BS.
It's a simple way to avoid any type of real discussion.
I guess by liberal, you mean that he often disagreed w/ Scalia and Rehnquist and the far right court. Heck, by today's far right standards, Reagan would have been a liberal.
It's really sad that conservatism has come to mean: "you agree with the far right or you're a liberal".
-David
Note to President Obama:
Here's the GOPs game. Say upfront that you'll filibuster anyone who is a liberal. Try to get the administration to pick as conservative a nominee as possible. Even hint that you would confirm such-and-such conservative nominee.
When this person is nominated, turn around and call him/her a liberal. Do whatever you can to block the nomination.
This is exactly what they did with healthcare and they're gearing up to do it again with whoever you nominate.
So I would suggest nominating as liberal a person as possible. You have nothing to lose!
I think this "liberal" stuff is a bunch of BS.
Stevens is widely considered to be on the liberal side of the court.
But on the more conservative Rehnquist Court, Stevens joined the more liberal Justices on issues such as abortion rights, gay rights and federalism.
a 2003 statistical analysis of Supreme Court voting patterns found Stevens the most liberal member of the Court.
Stevens has a generally liberal voting record on the Fourth Amendment, which deals with search and seizure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens
Which isn't to say that Justice Stevens doesn't have anything in common with some of the more conservative members. He is an advocate of the Death Penalty, for example.
Justice Stevens isn't a liberal in the "Code Pink" or "Cindy Sheehan" mold, this is true.
But he is quite a bit to the Left of Center and I do not believe that the GOP will allow a like-minded individual to be confirmed..
Ergo, any pick that is confirmed will more likely be closer to the Center than Stevens was and, therefore will increase the conservative make-up of the SCOTUS. For better AND for worse...
This is exactly what they did with healthcare and they're gearing up to do it again with whoever you nominate.
Really??
You seem to imply that the GOP told Obama "DO THIS, THIS and THAT and we'll vote for CrapCare."
You further imply that Obama DID do this, this and that and that the GOP reneged..
I see no evidence of Obama putting in ANYTHING meaningful of the GOP's suggestions.
Interstate Insurance Plans?? Nope.. Not there..
Medical Malpractice Reform?? Nope.. Don't see it anywhere...
You claim that the GOP wouldn't have supported CrapCare no matter what. I say that Obama SHOULD have put those things in and then we all would have SEEN what the GOP would have done. If THAT had occurred, then Dems might have had a snowball's chance in hell of hanging on to their majorities in the mid-terms.
But, of course, Obama couldn't do those things, because he is bought and paid for by corporate interests...
As to the the upcoming SCOTUS pick.. Let's see Obama cater to his fringe/base and watch the sparks fly!! :D
Michale.....
When it comes to Supreme Court justices, this is exactly what I'm talking about, Michale.
"Liberal" is defined as opposed to the most conservative beliefs of the day and is largely determined by who the talking head conservatives say liberals are.
The discussion moves away from any talk about beliefs and turns into branding and name calling.
Don't get me wrong. The GOP has used branding to great effect. They call things "government takeover" and "socialist" and have the wealth and media networks to get these brands out there.
This is why when people tend to agree with individual components of the healthcare bill, but may oppose healthcare reform in general. After all, no one wants a "government takeover". Problem is that this name calling tells you very little about the bill.
This is also what they are trying to do w/ financial reform - brand it as continuing to support big bank bailouts.
But it has very little to do with what's actually in the reform. Just as it has very little to do with Justice Stevens actual beliefs and decisions.
The study Wikipedia refers to is a study of voting patterns. All it shows is that Stevens tends to not vote w/ the self-described "conservatives" on the court.
It says nothing about his beliefs. When you look at his decisions and beliefs, he seems pretty darn moderate. But that wouldn't make for good politics, would it?
He fought for "no one should be above the law" in decisions surrounding Guantanamo. But he also ruled against Clinton in the Paula Jones case when it came to "no one should be above the law".
He seems like a judge who put principle above politics and this is what we need.
This is what Democrats need to emphasize when they select a new judge. Get away from this conservative/liberal garbage. That's the challenge Obama faces.
I like how Obama phrased it when he said we want someone with “an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.”
Fingers crossed.
-David
p.s. Michale, as I've said, the sparks are going to fly no matter who he nominates so let 'em.
As for being bought and paid for by corporate interests, what about your Supreme Court justices who just made it legal for corporations to donate as much as they want to certain candidates?
Most conservatives think it's a great thing. John Boehner called it "a big win for the 1st amendment". Why? Because they think it will benefit them most.
And this decision actually reversed part of a law - McCain-Feingold. Doesn't that seem like "activist" judging to you?
None of the "liberal justices" voted for this - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666
The discussion moves away from any talk about beliefs and turns into branding and name calling.
Of which BOTH sides of the political spectrum are guilty of..
The study Wikipedia refers to is a study of voting patterns. All it shows is that Stevens tends to not vote w/ the self-described "conservatives" on the court.
It says nothing about his beliefs. When you look at his decisions and beliefs, he seems pretty darn moderate. But that wouldn't make for good politics, would it?
That's like trying to decide what the definition of 'is' is...
If a judge's decisions are mostly decided with the liberal side of the issue, then it's a pretty safe bet to say that said judge has liberal beliefs..
As I said, if you take Steven's individual stances on this or that, there ARE some conservative stances. But, by and large, Stevens leans liberal..
I like how Obama phrased it when he said we want someone with “an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.”
And I completely agree with that.
However, Obama has proven time and time again that, while he knows all the right things to say, when it comes time for actions, he follows the liberal agenda, by and large...
Hopefully, he will walk the walk THIS time..
I don't hold out much hope, though...
As for being bought and paid for by corporate interests, what about your Supreme Court justices who just made it legal for corporations to donate as much as they want to certain candidates?
That's a gross mis-characterization of the Court's decision. A very LIBERAL characterization, if you will.. :D
The Court's decision was very narrowly limited to organizations, not corporations....
None of the "liberal justices" voted for this - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666
Of course they didn't.. Because it screws up the liberal agenda...
Regardless of how you wish things to be, this IS a Left vs Right battle.. It sure would be nice if it wasn't, but it is..
The problem the LEFT has is that their side of the issues weaken this country and make it vulnerable to attack from within and without...
That's the point that the Left never quite seems to grasp..
Michale.....
'Absolutely obsessed with painting [them] as racists...'
http://www.nowhampshire.com/2010/04/14/source-state-dems-scrambling-to-deploy-tea-party-%E2%80%98crashers%E2%80%99/
A perfect case in point....
The Left simply CANNOT fathom how mainstream Americans can accept the Tea Party as legitimate...
So, the Left is desperate to paint the TP in a negative light...
It's all about Right vs Left...
Michale.....
What I'm saying is that Stevens' views are quite moderate. Same with Obama.
But they are characterized as liberals, socialists, communists, whatever, for political differentiation.
You don't hear people on the left doing this. For example, no one is taking a middle-of-the-road Republican like Olympia Snowe and saying that she's an extreme nutjob conservative.
I think your bigger point is that this is the right's best hope for winning. Why? Because when people actually know the details, they tend to agree w/ a lot of them. So I understand the strategy.
It's easier to hate something like a dirty hippie liberal than a moderate, middle-of-the-road Republican like Justice Stevens.
So you can keep trying to make it about Right vs. Left. That's the strategy of the right-wing pundits. The original Karl Rove strategy.
But once you look past the surface, the landscape really looks more like - a few people on the left, a large majority of moderates, and a few people on the right with a very large media network.
-David
What I'm saying is that Stevens' views are quite moderate. Same with Obama.
I would agree with that, with the correction that, *SOME* of Steven's views are quite moderate.
As far as Obama, there hasn't been any recent evidence of Obama's "moderate" views..
His recent gutting of our Nuclear Response would seem to indicate that his "moderate" views have been buried very VERY deep...
For example, no one is taking a middle-of-the-road Republican like Olympia Snowe and saying that she's an extreme nutjob conservative.
That's because it's not true... With Steven's, we CAN point to some very liberal interpretations and decisions...
I think your bigger point is that this is the right's best hope for winning. Why? Because when people actually know the details, they tend to agree w/ a lot of them. So I understand the strategy.
Your mistaking agreeing with one or two points with agreeing with a "lot of them." There are one, maybe two aspects of CrapCare that John Q Public agrees with...
But that is a drop of piss in the sea of crap that is CrapCare...
So you can keep trying to make it about Right vs. Left. That's the strategy of the right-wing pundits. The original Karl Rove strategy.
Don't look at me.. I am not "making" it a Right vs Left issue.. The Hystericals on the Left and the Right do that. I simply point out the obvious without any rose colored glasses BS that normally obfuscate the view from the Left...
But once you look past the surface, the landscape really looks more like - a few people on the left, a large majority of moderates, and a few people on the right with a very large media network.
I would agree with you, in theory. But I would point out that the "few" from the Left and the Right are a LOT more than you want to believe..
Michale.....
But seriously...
All of the afore aside...
Ya really got to love the irony that the Dems chances in the upcoming mid-terms depend on Harry Reid delivering......
Tell me that doesn't make those on the Left simply groan with dismay, eh?? :D
Michale.....
Heh. Yes, Harry Reid is not exactly the most inspiring (perhaps the understatement of the year). So I'm with you there.
But as far as Stevens goes, he still seems more like a 1960s conservative who only appears liberal because of the conservative shift of the court.
Cheers
David
But as far as Stevens goes, he still seems more like a 1960s conservative who only appears liberal because of the conservative shift of the court.
I can agree with this...
In the make-up of the SCOTUS in the here and now, Stevens is one of the liberals..
And I still maintain that the GOP will not let Obama put on a new Justice that is as "liberal" as Stevens is..
Michale.....
And I still maintain that the GOP will not let Obama put on a new Justice that is as "liberal" as Stevens is.
Of course. They will absolutely try to shift the court further right. I just would like to see Obama and the Dems fight just as hard if not harder to nominate who they want rather than worrying about what Republicans care about.
But basically you're saying that Republicans won't accept anyone who is not even more conservative than Stephens. This is not bipartisanship.
This is the usual uncompromising Republican tactics. Don't accept anything unless it's further to the right. So if they're not willing to compromise, there is no incentive for Dems to work with them.
As with the case with healthcare, an appointee who is similar to Stevens would be the compromise. Not someone further to the right. This is not compromise!
Someone further to the left is who they should appoint if Repubs are going to be partisan.
All of this is Negotiation 101 - which sometimes I think the Dems could use. If the Dems need help, look back to how Bush pushed through who he wanted w/o compromising :)
-David
The funny thing about your post, David is this..
If you switch "Republican" with "Democrat", "liberal" with "conservative" and "right" with "left", it's still dead on ballz accurate.. :D
Michale....
All humor aside, I honestly see what you are saying..
You want the Dems to show LEADERSHIP...
Sorry to have to break it to you, but the Democratic Party is simply NOT capable of doing that..
The very nature of the Party precludes this..
If you want a Party that actually knows HOW to lead and does it day in and day out, you'll have to go Republican..
Sorry, but that is just the way it is..
Michale.....
You mean if I want someone to lead us off a cliff ... :)
Sorry, but I've seen Republican leadership.
1) Endless war
2) The financial crisis
3) Corporate welfare
4) Erosion of liberties and civil rights
5) Dick Cheney
All brought to you by Republican leadership.
They even managed to do the impossible and make me long for the days when our President's infidelity was all we had to worry about. No thanks.
And the Dems are learning. And getting more liberal! Watch out, Michale! The liberals are coming!
Sorry to hear you're going to continue to inhabit Right/Left land. This land really doesn't interest me that much. I'd rather talk to people than marketing segments.
-David
Trinity: What's he doing?
Morpheus: He's beginning to believe.
p.s. The piece about Democrats not being able to lead is misleading. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a populist platform but still covet the support and money from large businesses. It's not that they can't lead. But if they were to lead in the populist direction they typically run on they would turn off their big money donors.
Republicans face no such challenge as they run on a corporate platform. This makes it much easier for them to "lead". In a really horrible sense, this also makes them more honest because they don't have to pretend to care about the average person. The economy sucks and you can't find a job? Not our problem.
Any time Democrats want to pass something that will benefit no one but big business, they have no trouble leading. Want to send more money to military contractors? No problem. The resistance comes when the populist agenda collides w/ the corporate agenda.
1) Endless war
2) The financial crisis
3) Corporate welfare
4) Erosion of liberties and civil rights
5) Dick Cheney
News flash for ya, bucko...
All of those things are alive, flourishing and ENCOURAGED by the Obama Administration as well...
So, tell me.
How is that Hopey Changey thing workin' out for us, eh???
p.s. The piece about Democrats not being able to lead is misleading.
Not true. It's dead on balls accurate..
But if they were to lead in the populist direction they typically run on they would turn off their big money donors.
Democrats can't even decide WHAT the "populist direction" is...
That's my point..
The Democratic Party is a bunch of little fiefdoms, each with their own issues and own agendas. And the very foundation of the DP is BASED on the fact that each fiefdom is equal in priority to every other fiefdom.
And THAT is why the Democratic Party is incapable of showing true leadership.
The GOP, on the other had, also have those individual fiefdoms with their issues and agendas. But they have the DISCIPLINE to forget their own petty issues and come together for the good of the country(good) or the good of the Party (bad).
Any time Democrats want to pass something that will benefit no one but big business, they have no trouble leading.
They sure had a helluva time passing CrapCare which is a HUGE boon to big business. Billions of dollars going to corporations and yet, the Democrats had a helluva time to pass it.
Why??
Because it was POPULIST to be against CrapCare..
Democrats simply are incapable of leadership...
Michale.....
Well, Dick Cheney's gone, at least. Ok, maybe not quite, but at least he's not Veep.
And I know it's going to be a long process. Conservatives have spent the last 30 years moving the country to the right.
Kind of funny that you think Repubs would do anything for their country. That's something I haven't seen for a long time. I've heard it a lot - it tends to be Republicans saying it - but haven't seen them put much of anything above politics.