dagblog - Comments for "Filibuster Reform: The Silent Veto"

Yes, for better (Mr. Smith

Verified Atheist — Mon, 14 May 2012 13:42:51 +0000

In reply to You have a good point. Cable

Yes, for better (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) or worse (the typical scenario) highlighting those that would filibuster can only be a good thing.

You have a good point. Cable

trkingmomoe — Sun, 13 May 2012 02:37:03 +0000

In reply to I don't think the stamina

You have a good point. Cable news networks would cover the cots being rolled into the halls of the Senate, interview the pizza delivery boy and explain what telephone book they are reading. All because they are blocking some Senate housekeeping government chore to blackmail getting their way on something that doesn't have the votes. It would not take long for the general public to get tired of the constant obstruction.

Nice Dick.

tmccarthy0 — Sat, 12 May 2012 23:07:30 +0000

In reply to What is sauce for the goose

Nice Dick.

I singled him out because I

tmccarthy0 — Sat, 12 May 2012 23:06:29 +0000

In reply to Tmac, I don't see why you

I singled him out because I saw the headlines at Huff_Big_Scary_Headlines that Reid was going to change the filibuster rule come January 2013, cause he is so, so, so, so mad that nothing ever gets done no matter how hard he and the others try. Is it insane to believe things are actually going to change in the Senate? Where are the real reformers running for the Senate who will force this change? TeaBaggies? Hah, no. So I have no reason to believe things will change anyway, and that headline really torqued me off.

Also it seems too late to have your come to Jesus moment, say your are going to change things come January 2013, when we needed it changed January 2009. Better late than never you say, except I think it will still be never. What is weird about Reid saying this now, is that Republicans are poised to gain even more power in the Senate, now he is going to talk Dem's into giving up their silent veto? Which tells me it won't actually happen.

We will see who is right in January 2013.

What is sauce for the goose

Richard Day — Sat, 12 May 2012 22:05:13 +0000

In reply to Filibuster Reform: The Silent Veto

What is sauce for the goose is a double edged sword.

WHAT?

I don't think the stamina

Elusive Trope — Sat, 12 May 2012 21:50:14 +0000

In reply to I don't know if it's a couple

I don't think the stamina aspect is what is so important, but rather that it turns it from a procedural move to an event. And an event can be show on the teley and youtube. It provides a backdrop image for an action which then becomes associated to the individuals caught up in the spectacle. It is one thing to just talk about the others being obstructionists, and a whole other ball of wax to point to someone reading the phone book and calling them an obstructionist.

Maybe, couda, shoulda, might

NCD — Sat, 12 May 2012 20:33:16 +0000

In reply to Filibuster Reform: The Silent Veto

Maybe, couda, shoulda, might have. Blame it all on Reid (or Obama) who could have waved a magic filibuster disappearing wand at some past historical point, and miraculously brought our dysfunctional Congress of obstructive GOP fools and our country into the Promised Land?

Forget the Mayan calendar, the Nazca lines, the Ark on that hill in Turkey, the greatest mystery in the world is why Americans keep electing Republican hucksters, especially after suffering through 8 bloody years of the Supreme Court anointed, lying dumb-ass GOP war criminal and Decider, George W. Bush.

I don't know if it's a couple

Michael Maiello — Sat, 12 May 2012 19:45:13 +0000

In reply to Tmac, I don't see why you

I don't know if it's a couple of hundred years late. The Senate can keep its filibuster, if they do it according to the old rules, where it had to be an endless talking filibuster rather than a procedural dodge. Were physical stamina brought back into the game, the filibuster might be both muted and elevated in its significance.

Tmac, I don't see why you

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 12 May 2012 19:24:13 +0000

In reply to Filibuster Reform: The Silent Veto

Tmac, I don't see why you single out Reid for opprobrium on this issue at this time. Sure, he might have come out against the filibuster sooner, but he's just the latest in a very, very long line of senators on both sides of the aisle who couldn't bring themselves to give up their right to obstruct legislation. Given the history, I'm not sure why you didn't write something more along the lines of, "Well at least the bastard is finally is doing something right." In other words, those of us who oppose the filibuster should be celebrating his proposal, even if it's a couple hundred years late in coming.

But more to the point, I think that you and Reid have very different motivations behind your support for scrapping the filibuster. You're frustrated because Democrats missed an opportunity to pass extraordinary legislation. I suspect that Reid is more concerned that giving up the filibuster will enable a future Republican congress to pass extraordinary legislation of a different sort.

Instead, what seems to have finally driven him over the edge was not the inability to pass the landmark bills but the Republicans' interference with routine business, in the most recent case, a reauthorizaton of the Export-Import Bank. Now you may not care about the Export-Import Bank, but there is a lot of routine work that the Senate has to do in order to keep the government running. Unfortunately, over the past few years, it has virtually lost its ability to function, period.

While I oppose the filibuster in any case, I can see that Reid has a point. There is a reasonable case to be made for a supermajority requirement on significant legislation. We should not make big changes lightly. To see that, just imagine what will happen to Medicare and Social Security if Romney wins and Republicans take the Senate.

But there is no case to be made for a supermajority threshold for routine extensions and confirmations. Such filibusters are designed solely to sabotage government operations. They have finally driven Reid to consider ending the filibuster, and I say better late than never.

A flit of wings in

Anonymous — Sat, 12 May 2012 18:56:03 +0000

In reply to Grasshopper, you have much to

A flit of wings in Washington, and a cyclone starts in Mauritius. Chaos theory - the driver behind our politics. It used to be alternate universes, Shroedinger's Cat and all that, but we've moved on.

The president - simultaneously a particle and a wave, a woos and a superman. Pull the lever already, dammit, I can't hold it anymore cap'n, we're breaking up..."

"I'm a doctor, Jim, not a Sunday morning guest on the talkshow circuit..."

Season cancelled, getting too ridiculous, even for Lost.