kausfiles.com

From Politico's piece on the Republicans' public worry that if they make big gains in November, Democrats will attempt to pass big legislation such as immigration reform and labor law reform ("card check") in a lame duck session:

[D]emocratic aides on Capitol Hill say claims of a lame-duck session full of big-ticket issues aren’t founded in reality.

“This is nothing more than a fundraising tactic and chest-thumping on the right,” said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “We’re a long way from deciding what, if anything, we’re going to do in a lame duck.” [**]

Not speaking for attribution, top Democratic aides say outright that, given the votes needed to move controversial legislation, the prospect is fantasy.

“There is no idea that we’re going to stay here and do any sort of comprehensive agenda,” said a Senate Democratic leadership aide.

Another Democratic congressional aide went further in explaining why the prospect of getting 60 votes for hot-button legislation is implausible.

“It’s pretty preposterous and straight out of the black helicopter wing of GOP thinking,” the aide said. [E.A.]

Hmm. ... Where might Republicans have gotten this chesty fundraising fantasy? Here's the lede from a Peter Nicholas L.A. Times piece that ran on June 30. It's headlined: "Obama renews immigration push."

Reporting from Washington — It would be a revival worthy of Lazarus, but President Obama is making a renewed push for an immigration overhaul, possibly during a lame-duck session of Congress after the November election — when members would no longer face an imminent political risk for supporting it.

Obama met with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in the State Dining Room on Tuesday and discussed a strategy for passing a bill that had seemed dead for the year. ...

Nicholas continues:

With conservatives energized, angry and likely to storm to the polls, Democrats fear they will lose even more seats in Congress than a president's party typically does at the halfway point in his term.

Voting on an immigration bill in a lame-duck session has some advantages in proponents' eyes. Outgoing members of Congress would have little reason to fear backing a controversial bill. And those who won might be more likely to support it, since they wouldn't have to face voters for another two years — when Obama is up for reelection and likely to draw progressives to the polls.

In addition, if Republicans make major gains in November, an immigration overhaul could be impossible in 2011 or 2012. [E.A.]

What about "card check," the fading top priority for many labor unions that would let them avoid secret ballots in organizing elections? Here's a June 24 story in "The Hill":

Harkin hints 'card-check' bill could move during lame-duck session of Congress

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) suggested Thursday that Democrats might attempt to move "card-check" legislation this year, perhaps during a lame-duck session.

Harkin, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, strongly disputed that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, or "card-check") was dead in the Senate.

"To those who think it's dead, I say think again," Harkin said on the liberal Bill Press radio show. ... [snip]

The Iowa senator also raised the prospect on Thursday or trying to pass parts of the card-check bill during a lame-duck session of Congress at the end of the year.

"A lot of things can happen in a lame-duck session, too," he said in reference to EFCA.

You get the picture. Democratic legislators and their aides are trying to have it both ways--pumping up the possibility of an ambitious "lame duck" session when they're in base-pleasing mode, then calling it a fantasy when their opponents take them seriously.

Suggested defensive sound bite: "We were only pandering!"

P.S.: I'm not at all sure they were only pandering. To reach that conclusion, you'd need to know how many Republicans might defect on a last-chance cloture vote on immigration--and whether any of the rumored "card-check" compromises might clear the same hurdle. You'd also need to be sure there's no ingenious reconciliation-like way around cloture during a lame duck.

A scenario that seems especially troubling--for those of use who think both big "reforms" are very bad ideas--is this: Dems lose lots of seats in the mid-terms, but fewer than expected, retaining control of both House and Senate. They spin this better-than-expected result into an actual victory of sorts. The press goes along. Then Pelosi & Co. decide to ride this wave of popular "vindication" in the lame duck--avoiding the need to deal with their diminished post-January majorities while at the same time claiming they aren't defying the voters. ...

Update: Emailer M: "Especially because if Pelosi hangs on as Speaker after November, she will do so while claiming that the only guys defeated weren't really Democrats in the first place.  It's a mandate for progressives!"

Let's go to the videotape: Brian Faughnan has more links, with Democratic Majority Leader Reid talking on camera to Netroots Nation about using the lame duck session to pass "comprehensive immigration reform" (amnesty).  Reid also mentions energy legislation as a lame duck possibilty. ... "Congressional leaders have said recently that there’s no ‘secret plan’ to pass controversial measures during a lame duck session,' notes Faughnan, who agrees with them. "[I]t’s not a secret at all; they talk about it everywhere."

__________

**--“We’re a long way from deciding what, if anything, we’re going to do in a lame duck.”  There's a convincing denial!

6:16 P.M.

___________________________

From Beast's Lauria and Grove, covering the Newsweek sale:

In fairness to Harman, many moguls, from Si Newhouse (The New Yorker) to David Bradley (The Atlantic) have had the patience to take their money-losing gems all the way into the black. ...

The Atlantic is in the black? If so, they buried the lede. I'm skeptical. ... 11:57 P.M.

___________________________