I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
The Dems have big problems.
take a look at these this article;
http://famulus.msnbc.com/Famulus...asp?
reg=MIDEAST
Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, said there was ''nothing that changes the bottom line'' of prewar assessments that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the capacity to create ''voluminous quantities'' of such weapons.
This is patently false. He knows damn well it is false.
''We've apprehended some of the top people in their weapons of mass destruction programs, they're not talking yet. My guess is that the key to this lies inside someone's mind who is not yet prepared to tell us what they know,'' Bayh said.
Some potential weapons sites in Iraq had also been ransacked, he said.
''Some of them have been terribly ransacked in ways that looters would not, so there appears to have been some conscious destruction taking place,'' Bayh said.
Bayh said lethal amounts of biological or chemical weapons could be easily hidden.
''Hundreds of thousands of gallons of liquid anthrax, for example, which would have the potential to do great harm, would fill the size of a swimming pool in someone's backyard,'' Bayh said. ''A potentially devastating amount of smallpox could be hidden in something the size of a jar.''
Is he drunk?
Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said questioning the intelligence was appropriate at a time when the United States wages a war on terrorism and engages in a policy of preemptive attack.
But he said he did not believe President George W. Bush intentionally misled the public when he said Iraq had tried to obtain nuclear material from Africa, an assertion based on documents later judged forgeries.
''The president I'm sure did not mean to mislead the people, I think that he was given bad information and we have to ask what was the source? Who checked it out?'' Durbin said.
Again, what the fuck is wrong with Dems? They keep shooting their party in the foot.
Bush used the Husein Kamal interview for his purposes. But Kamal also claimed ALL WMD had been destroyed.
This is only more proof Nader was right.
But Dems are far worse than even nader claims. We have Palasts article proving McKinney never said what was claimed. Dems let her burn. We have Rahm Emmanuel co-sponsoring the Tort reform thing and 32 Dems signing it. We know about Biden, Hollings, Liberman.
How can anyone honestly support these backstabbing lying bastards?
I'll agree that Dems have lots of problems, including keeping their caucus in line. I also like Rule XXII as it stands now, because it does mean we in the minority have a fighting chance. And I find George's predictable flip-flop to be annoying (at least he still hates the Designated Hitter rule).
But I would like to point out that the Senate has changed the filibuster rules a lot since the 1st Congress. In fact, the original rules written by Thos. Jefferson allowed debate to be ended by a simple majority of a quorum--hardly the filibuster we know today, so I think the article overstates things a bit. It wasn't until 1806 that a single Senator could object to cutting off debate. In 1917 they amended the rule so 2/3 (67) of the Senate could stop debate, then 3/5 (60) in 1975 as a backlash against the practice used to fight civil rights legislation. So changing the rule today, while obviously a political gambit, is not all really all that earthshattering.
This all brings up a big fundamental question for me: should the Senate be re-engineered to make it "more democratic"? Altering the current practice would do that by allowing the majority to, in fact, rule and pass legislation by majority vote as specified in the Constitution. Taking that a step further, should we also amend the Constitution itself so small states like mine (VT) don't get the exact same representation as big states like CA? That would be more in line with a "one person, one vote" philosophy.
But I digress...
"This all brings up a big fundamental question for me: should the Senate be re-engineered to make it "more democratic"?"
How, other than firing them all. i think there are at least two requirements to make all politics fair.
1. Term limits. Eight years and they are gone.
2. Public financing. No pacs, no lobbying. Nothing to stand between the politician and the will of his constituents.
STUPID SID'S FINE WRITING
WHAT A FUCKING DOPE
(FROM AN AMUSING REVIEW IN CITY JOURNAL OF SID THE SHARK'S UNINTENTIONALLY FUNNY BOOK)
Here he is recalling Hillary Clinton’s decision to run for the Senate, doing his hilarious impression of a twittering West Wing sycophant: “She was, like millions of others, drawn to the greatest city of all. (She discovered that her Rodham ancestor from England had landed on Ellis Island.) Her running there could not but flatter New Yorkers’ self-conception. Hillary had spent eight years in Washington. She was shaking those ‘little town blues.’ Now it was time for Broadway.”
Blumenthal also presents his zany overview of history, past and future: “Just as the presidents of the late 20th century operated in the shadow of F.D.R., those of the first part of the 21st century will stand in the shadow of Clinton.” Then there are his pages of ludicrously self-referential photos
--Among other blind spots is the vexed issue of Bill’s alleged indiscretions, which Hillary dismisses as agitprop by diabolical foes jealous of her husband’s Christlike aspiration to transform earthly life. Hillary and her advisers have yet to realise that her indifference or malice towards aggrieved working women like Juanita Broaddrick (who claims to have been injured by Bill in an Arkansas hotel room) compromises her status as a proponent of women’s rights, as enunciated in her 1995 speech against sexual violence at the UN World Conference on Women in Beijing. Hillary’s studied avoidance of Broaddrick’s allegations simply strengthens the Clintons’ myriad right-wing enemies, who have taken up Broaddrick’s cause.
But this is only one of many evasions and erasures in the book, which would need a line-by-line Talmudic commentary in the margins to supply all the needed corrections and amplifications. Numerous scandals are given short shrift or go unmentioned: we hear nothing, for example, of Bill’s end-of-office pardons (in which Hillary’s own brother was involved) or the flap over the Clintons’ trucking away of White House furniture, which had to be returned. When Hillary’s missing billing records from the Rose Law Firm, which were long sought by prosecutors, mysteriously turn up in an office near her White House bedroom, she vaguely blames it all on a hapless assistant.
This won't happen. The GOP moderates won't stand it.
jeepers
the republicans should be careful what they wish for. what goes around comes around.
Anybody here read Robert Caro's "Master of the Senate"? If so, you might, like me, be somewhat cynical that, after all these years, a simple procedural solution has been found to render filibusters impotent. The best minds in the Senate have tried to find a way around the filibuster rule since it was established, without success. Anyone have any insight into this "constitutional point of order" Cheney is supposed to whip out of his back pocket?
as a native Hoosier who remembers Sen. Bayh's father, Birch Bayh, who was a REAL Democrat, with reference to the quote from Evan Bayh - Bayh helped define the DLC. In Indiana they say he is more Republican than the Republicans. Of course he'll back the President whatever happens - esp. since he has other family/professional ties that link him to the BushCo (Lilly - remember Mitch Daniels?). He is a faux Democrat at best.
>>Anybody here read Robert Caro's "Master of the Senate"?
I did, Walt - but you know what? Today is DON'T FEED THE TROLLS day II - so get bent - no one wants to play with you or gives a rats tush what you have to say.
Taking that a step further, should we also amend the Constitution itself so small states like mine (VT) don't get the exact same representation as big states like CA? That would be more in line with a "one person, one vote" philosophy.
If you do that, then what's the point of having a separate House of Representatives?
What we're dealing with here is the inherent instability of democracy.
A simple question: Why does a President's term last for four years? Once it becomes clear that a majority of people no longer supports him (or her) why not insist on another election? Also, why is a President limited to two terms? The answer lies somewhere in the triangle of Franklin Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, and King George III. Just chew on that for a minute.
The ancillary question is this: Should majority rule? Then there's this question: How?
The R's are trying to foist on us the idea that there are 51 of them and only 50 of us, so they don't have to share. Of course, this is very shortsighted. In the long run, their venom will serve to poison them as much as us. (As an aside let me remind this dedicated audience that it was their fearless leader's favorite political philosopher who suggested that we should "do unto others as we would have them do unto us." And they will; they most certainly will.)
What do we do when "democracy" clashes with "human rights" and "civil rights", whatever we take those terms to mean? Our very own Constitution requires supermajorites in matters of treaties and impeachment convictions in order to insulate such momentous decisions from the fickle political winds which now beset us.
Look, promises must matter. Can we just scrap Social Security because 51 Republicans don't like it? Is that "democracy" by any reasonable definition?
Back to the point of judicial nominations. Senate rules are promises, and they too must matter. If the Republicans can change the rules simply and exclusively to effect the results they desire, the spirit of democracy is dead. Furthermore, which is more "democratic": the appointment for life of a nominee by a 51-50 vote on the Senate floor or the appointment for life of a nominee by acclamation?
Can't we find "well-qualified" nominees who can be confirmed by wide margins? Wouldn't that speak to the ideal of democracy? Why is it that we cannot expect better?
At base the question comes down to this: Is democracy getting as much done as you can to further your own interests while you are in power, or is democracy doing as much as you can while in power to further the interests of the greatest number of people?
The answer to THAT question governs my thoughts and my politics and my votes. And it means that I certainly do NOT always vote for Democrats, though I almost NEVER vote for Republicans.
I sure am glad we "elected" a uniter to lead us through these dark times. I'd hate to see this country being rules by a "divider". Yikes!
Can we just scrap Social Security because 51 Republicans don't like it? Is that "democracy" by any reasonable definition?
Overlooking your baseless assertion that the goal, or even the result, of Republican legislation would be "scrapping Social Security" - Can we just do [blank] because 49 Democrats don't like it? Is that "democracy" by any reasonable definition?
That definition is certainly even less reasonable than questionning the right of a majority to determine policy...you want to allow a MINORITY to determine policy.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The repuklicans are consumed in a crash and burn strategy; do not count on "moderates" to save the day.
Is democracy getting as much done as you can to further your own interests while you are in power, or is democracy doing as much as you can while in power to further the interests of the greatest number of people?
Speak to the true faith, brother Marx: are you quite certain, absolutely certain, deterministically certain, that YOUR policies will indeed further the interests of the greatest number of people?
Guess what: we Republicans think the same thing about our own policies.
actually, when it comes to discussing procedural points of order, walter cronkite demonstrates some sort of modicum of restraint and reasonableness.
that said, is today DON'T FEED THE TROLLS DAY?
someone get me the memo, i missed it. i thought it was yesterday.
Today is ignore Rosie Joe day two.
Move along.
Can we just scrap Social Security because 51 Republicans don't like it? Is that "democracy" by any reasonable definition?
Overlooking your baseless assertion that the goal, or even the result, of Republican legislation would be "scrapping Social Security"
Baseless asserttion?? What planet are you living on? Grover Norquist (saint of the hard right) has publicly stated that their goal through tax cuts is to make the government small enough "to drown in the bathwater" I think Social Security falls under government services.
The new Republican way, lie first and if the facts expose your lies, keep lying and say remember 9-11, remember 9-11.
Amish Rake Fighter,
Let me direct you to this paragraph in the Altercation cited below:
Did you notice that Judge David Sentelle wrote the 2-1 decision allowing Ashcroft to keep the names of jailed terrorist suspects a secret? Flashback: this is the same judge who back in the Clinton era was caught having lunch with senators Helms and Faircloth a few days before removing Robert Fiske as Whitewater investigator and replacing him with Ken Starr. At first he said they talked about nothing but their enlarged prostates (I kid you not), but then admitted something may have been said about Whitewater. I’m sure that this time Judge Sentelle similarly adhered to ethical rules against discussing a pending case with interested parties. Who appointed Sentelle? Dubya’s father. Who appointed the judge who voted with him? Reagan. The lone dissenting judge was appointed by Clinton. Maybe Nader can tell one of these secret souls languishing in jail how there’s no difference between the two parties
we Republicans think the same thing about our own policies
By your logic, that makes you communists.
I'll support making the Senate's operations more democratic, more "majority rules," when the election of Senators is made democratic and the majority rules. Alaska gets the same number of Senators as California? Idaho gets the same number as New York? In the words of the esteemed Grover Norquist, the Founding Fathers gerrymandered the Senate to benefit Republicans. The fact that they can't get past 50%, with all their unfair advantages, is pretty pathetic.
A few comments...
Blumenthal also presents his zany overview of history, past and future: “Just as the presidents of the late 20th century operated in the shadow of F.D.R., those of the first part of the 21st century will stand in the shadow of Clinton.”
You're doing your little part to prove this true.
I did, Walt - but you know what? Today is DON'T FEED THE TROLLS day II - so get bent - no one wants to play with you or gives a rats tush what you have to say.
Andy, a troll is only a troll based upon what they say. Walter has raised a valid point. Could someone explain this "Constitutional point of order?"
Overlooking your baseless assertion that the goal, or even the result, of Republican legislation would be "scrapping Social Security"
Walter, isn't Social Security no longer social when it's individual security and privatized?
>>Anybody here read Robert Caro's "Master of the Senate"?
I did, Walt - but you know what? Today is DON'T FEED THE TROLLS day II - so get bent - no one wants to play with you or gives a rats tush what you have to say.
I think this is a bit unfair. Don't feed the trolls like the "Sid the Shark" guy above, sure, but we're not doing ourselves any favors by just sitting here patting ourselves on the back and tossing insults while shuddering with rage any time someone who disagrees happens along. WC makes a good point: If this can be done so easily, why hasn't anybody done it before? My guess is because it is a bad idea. It seems odd to me that the party that seems most bent on preventing too much democracy (and you can certianly have too much democracy) is the one that would, in this hypothetical, overly (in my opinion) democratize the Senate.
The current attacks on the United States government, fomented, arranged and performed by an increasingly destructive Republican Party, smack of treason and sedition.
Make no mistake: The dismantling of government to aid in the construction of corporate empires is the goal. No number of smirking chimp humpers can mass-spam reality away, nor divert enough of us from the goal of removing the hideous claws of the Neocons/Wingnuts from our vulnerable Democracy.
This is not about "Conservatives Vs. Liberals"--this is about an assault on our nation by Barons of Industry and Lords of Commerce against a people who, when roused from slumber, may yet put up a fight.
George Will should stick to writing about baseball. The problem is, he doesn't know anything about that subject either.
Overlooking your baseless assertion that the goal, or even the result, of Republican legislation would be "scrapping Social Security" - Can we just do [blank] because 49 Democrats don't like it? Is that "democracy" by any reasonable definition?
That definition is certainly even less reasonable than questionning the right of a majority to determine policy...you want to allow a MINORITY to determine policy.
Since Walter/Tiernan is being almost reasonable today, I'd like to encourage that attitude by actually engaging him on his point. Positive reinforcement, and all that, right?
With its two Senators per state rule, and the fact that the Republican Senators -- who mostly come from states with small populations -- represent a MINORITY of voters, I must say that I agree with you, Walter. I don't want this minority to determine policy, which is why I favor a 60 vote rule for shutting down debate, since that requirement makes it difficult for Senators representing a minority of voters to thwart the will of the majority -- which certainly doesn't want people like Owen, Estrada, or Pryor appointed to lifetime positions on the federal appellate courts.
WalterC:
Yes, permitting more pollution of our air, water, and land will help the greatest number of people.
Yes, cutting funding for schools will help the greatest number of people.
Yes, abrogating treaties on Presidential whim will help the greatest number of people.
Yes, deregulating the airwaves so that (Australian) Murdoch can turn TV, radio, and newspapers into a commercially driven drivel will help the greatest number of people.
I've seen the light! I'm a convert!! Hosanna!!!
I did not quote Marx, and I'm not a Marxist, but GWB does quote Jesus Christ. And good old JC would have been a Marxist if he'd been born 2000 years later: "Go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasures in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." That from the Gospel according to Mark. It only sounds like Marx. Jeebus Jeebus Jeebus.
I also didn't say that the Rs would scrap Social Security. I merely asked whether doing so on a 51-50 would represent democracy. And, by the way, plenty of Rs have themselves expressed deisdain for all transfer-payment programs. You can hear the venom drip on O'Reilly's suit every time he say things like "New Deal" and "Great Society". Don't pretend we're makin' it up. See the post above about Grover. Named for a muppet.....
Lastly, and this is the difference between us, I don't know for certain that my ideas is best. I do not know for sure that what I would promote would, in fact, help the greatest number of people. That's why I suggest and attempt to foster reasoned and reasonable debate. Note: I was asking questions, rhetorical and otherwise. I was looking for answers; I was not running around telling everybody what they had to do. It is the rightist idealogues who insist that they have the patent on truth. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot accept that they might, indeed, make a mistake. They cannot change their minds. They're too busy counting their money.
I do, however, know that what the Rs wanna do right now will help fewer people than are being helped now. Their plans are a step back.
Sorry, officer. I didn't see the sign. I'm all outa troll food now anyway. It won't happen again.
>>and tossing insults while shuddering with rage any time someone who disagrees happens along
if you really think WC is someone who has just happened along, then you haven't been following this board. Just because he decides to come across as reasonable and intelligent for once doesn't make up or excuse his weeks of thread hijackings and bomb throwings. You won't be able to get a decent conversation going with him. You won't be able to get him to acknowledge or respond to any points that you raise that challenge him. He deserves the same respect that he's shown others and this board. Go ahead and pretend he's "respectable" - encourage him - and see what happens.
I'm always amazed at the amount of respect respectable folks are willing to show those who are incapable of showing respect for others - but hey, I guess I'm the bad guy here - carry on.
At least one Democrat still has some balls:
Dean also spoke forcefully on the issue of Iraq and the administration's continued insistence that it will find weapons of mass destruction there in the wake of the war effort. Asked by reporters whether the American people were lied to on the matter, Dean said, "Yes, they were."
"They were told by the secretary of defense that we knew where the weapons (in Iraq) were, and evidently, there were no such weapons," he said. "We didn't know where they were."
"We were told by the vice president that there was a high likelihood that Saddam had nuclear weapons," he said. "That turned out not to be true.
"We were told by the president that we could expect that the Iraqi troops would use chemical weapons on us, that the order had been given, that an attack by Saddam Hussein could happen at any moment. That turned out not to be true."
BTW, it's still "Ignore the Moronic Brownshirt Fuck Day," so act accordingly...
Reality check.
We don't live in a democracy per se. What we have is a representative democratic system. We don't rule by mass plebiscite. Our system of government was set up as it is to specifically inhibit a “tyranny of the majority”. The idea that ‘we have 51 votes and you only have 50 means that we can do whatever we want’ is completely anathema to the spirit of our government! For God’s sake. If majority ruled our illustrious leader would be back in Crawford twiddling his thumbs. Has anyone ever heard of the concept of checks and balances? As much as it serves to decrease the ‘efficiency’ of government it helps to keep us from ‘efficiently’ flushing our freedoms down the toilet! Go back and do some reading about the constitutional debates and in the Federalist Papers. The founders were greatly concerned about the ability of democracy to survive in a huge, diverse country. The ‘compromise’ that resulted in our constitution, a constitution that has survived over 200 years largely unchanged, was a result of these fears. Control of the White House and of Congress has and will continue to shift back and forth as constituents voice there will at the ballot box.
Appointments to lifetime tenure judicial positions are a little different. The problem has been greatly debated since the Adams/Jefferson transition. The Senate filibuster serves, and should continue to serve as a deterrent to the attempt by one party to install radical nominees. Our judiciary is intended to be impartial. It has instead become more and more a political tool of last resort.
It's amazing how shrill and bent out of shape Republicans get when somebody actually uses RULES against them.
They are so used to buying their way to whatever result they want. Here they spent all those millions electing a figurehead President, electing a Senate majority, and now they can't continue buying their way to judgeships they want, all because of a few silly RULES.
Never mind that they themselves defended the sanctity of those RULES when they were the minority party.
It's all hypocrisy, pure and simple.
...those of the first part of the 21st century will stand in the shadow of Clinton.”
Nice | 06.20.03 - 8:10 am | #
Your post, Mr. Nice, is 101 political analysis. You think bush doesn't fear standing in Clinton's shadow? Clinton's minor sexual escapades aside, why won't bush go to, say, any of those countries where Clinton was mobbed by supporters? Why won't he have more press conferences? Why do you never see him having those 'rope walks' where the prez shakes hands with people? Bush's are always on the White House lawn as he comes off the helicopter. Why do they have to guard him so much? He knows, Rove knows, they all do, that in stature, charisma, everything, he disappears beside Clinton! He is not a normal president -- at least I hope he's not what the future holds for this country.
I watched "Nuremberg" last night, mainly because I hadn't seen it before.
Several good points come out of it, among them:
The people of a country can, eventually, be convinced to support anything their government wants them to.
There is no faster route than arrogance to the death of an empire.
Sometimes the good guys win, and mass murderers are brought to justice.
So, with any luck, human decency will overtake the majority and Saddam and Georgie and Osama can all be tossed into prison soon. We can put them in the same cell block.
If you want to see the tyranny of the majority, just look at our current House of Representatives. Usually, the Senate acts as a counterbalance so that people in states like Rhode Island and Vermont have some say in how their country works. (Yes, Govt. 101 but still)
I live in an enormous and populous state and I would hate to think that we represent the whole country.
Wait...we currently do. Nuff said.
Prison, my ass, unless is pound-you-in-the-ass maximum secuirty prison.
Otherwise, it's Duck Pit time.
Andy x writes:
""I'm always amazed at the amount of respect respectable folks are willing to show those who are incapable of showing respect for others - but hey, I guess I'm the bad guy here - carry on.""
Anyone on this board who disputes this and then engages Walter when he seems lucent should ponder the analogy between yourself and Democratic Congressmen and Senators. They are getting abused by the right, yet still try to play by the rules (much to the discouragement of the left as per Amish's prior post). It's simply not going to work.
Bush in prison? I doubt that. They couldn't even put away Ollie North, ferchrissakes.
Tony B and Andy X:
I guess I've just spent too much time with Quakers. They convinced me that it is worthwhile to play by the rules, whether the other guy does or not.
Walter, isn't Social Security no longer social when it's individual security and privatized?
heheheheh
Atrios, are you insinuating that this administration plays by a different rulebook?
I do not advocate changing the constitution, at all, even a little. In fact I advocate a fairly strict interpretation of it. No where in the constitution does it state that corporations are people, or that corporations have the same rights as people.
It's actually fairly well written if your goal is to slow the tyranny of the majority, which is all we see on FX news. Slow progreess from a tryannic majority.
If King George II is the figurehead now, who is KG III going to be? oh wait, KG III already caused a revolution here.
The way the 'nuclear option' point of order works is something like this:
1. 100 Senators present and Cheney in the chair presiding. The business of the Senate at the moment is the nomination of either Owens or Estrada. Frist as Majority Leader offers another of his motions to close debate and bring on a vote on the nomination. This motion is itself not debatable, and is immediately voted on. A majority votes in favor, but the number of votes is fewer than 60, which by rule is the number required for this sort of motion to pass.
2. At this point a Senator rises to state of point of order, saying something like: "According to the Constitution, a simple majority of Senators is sufficient to consent to the nomination of a judge, but our rule requiring a super-majority conflicts with this provision, so our rule must give way, and the motion to close debate should be considered as having passed."
3. As presiding officer, Cheney consults the Parlimentarian, who LIES THROUGH HIS FUCKING TEETH, and says that the point of order is well taken. Cheney rules accordingly.
4. Some Democratic Senator appeals the chair's ruling, which is immediately voted on, and passes 51-50, with Cheney casting the tie breaking vote.
5. Debate having been closed, the vote on the nomination is in order, and we may presume it passes, possibly with another tie-breaking vote from Cheney.
At this point, the dems will bring the business of the Senate to a grinding halt, I hope, by objecting whenever a republican asks for unanimous consent to do something or other. If you watch C-Span you'll see that requests for unanimous consent occur about every other breath a Senator with the floor takes.
Mac:
I agree that we should not become that which we fight, but we should not be so foolish as to follow rules sure to cause defeat before the battle is over.
Here's the thing: if security is such an issue, the left will always lose because we won't even fight for ourselves; that is, simply fighting the fight is necassary to convince voters that we can secure this country against our enemies. If we constantly get ourselves abused because we are following arcane (but civil) rules, how can we assure anyone that we won't be abused by national enemies by following the same strategy?
Time and again the left has tried to engage in civil debate only to be slaughtered by wingnut deceit. So, Mac: unpleasant as it may seem, and certainly not our fault, but maybe the rules we follow need to be brought up to date.
Changing the rules, or "bringing them up to date," is exactly what we're arguing against here. I know these are two different things entirely, but I felt it should be pointed out.
The Constitution says "Advice and Consent" of the Senate.
It doesn't spell out what those words mean, and thus the Senate has defined what the Consent part means. Filibusters included.
If the right is gonna work it's bloomers in a bunch with an argument that says, shrilly, "the Constitution says Consent is 2/3 for treaties, so if it doesn't say anything else anywhere else, it simply, duh, must mean mere majority", I say we on the left press them over the meaning of "Advice". If the President doesn't seek the Advice of the Senate, how can he get their Consent?
Did we mention the "senatorial courtesy" of the Blue Slip Policy, whereby either senator from the state of a nominee can, singlehandedly, put the kibosh on a nominee? YO! Advice & Consent boy, I yer Advice & Consent right HERE!
Anybody remember how many of Clinton's nominees never even received a hearing in committee, much less a floor vote?
Who's keeping score here?
Let's assume worse case scenario and the repukes get rid of the filibuster. Atrios points out that it would then be MOD time. How exactly would the Dems retaliate? What could they do in response? Any parliamentarians out there with an idea?
Just a thought.....next time either house is majority Dem, we should insist that they do things the "right" way. Just vote to expell all the Rs. Simply majority rule. Sweet. Elegant. I wonder why it's never been done.
""Changing the rules, or "bringing them up to date," is exactly what we're arguing against here. I know these are two different things entirely, but I felt it should be pointed out.""
So true; but, if the fillibuster rules do change, should we adapt or play by the old ones because they're more fair? The rules HAVE already changed, either use the new ones or get slapped.
>>How exactly would the Dems retaliate? What could they do in response? Any parliamentarians out there with an idea?
The scenario that I've seen most widely mentioned is a shutdown similar to 1995. Basically the Democrats in the Senate would refuse to go along with any business, even denying a quorum if needby ala the Texan Democrats. Eventually, the fiscal year will end, nothing will be funded to move forward and the government would shut down.
Whether or not the public would tolerate this or not when we are "at war" is a matter to be seen.
Anybody here read Robert Caro's "Master of the Senate"? If so, you might, like me, be somewhat cynical that, after all these years, a simple procedural solution has been found to render filibusters impotent. The best minds in the Senate have tried to find a way around the filibuster rule since it was established, without success. Anyone have any insight into this "constitutional point of order" Cheney is supposed to whip out of his back pocket?
I did, Walt - but you know what? Today is DON'T FEED THE TROLLS day II - so get bent - no one wants to play with you or gives a rats tush what you have to say.
As the author of that Modest Proposal yesterday, I'd like to chime in here.
My suggestion was to ignore trolling, not trolls.
So, Walter, I didn't read the book you mention. Given that several other people have posted the changes that have been made over time in the filibuster rule, what's in this book that would lead you to believe it's impossible?
Thanks.
Hudson's on to something. If they do this, what's to stop a further ruling that only Republicans need to vote on things for legislation to pass the Senate? Or a future Democratic Senate and Democratic Vice-President from doing the same the other way around?
It seems to me that the utterly power-hungry right-wing minority is very good at opening cans of worms for all of us.
>>As the author of that Modest Proposal yesterday, I'd like to chime in here.
Feel free to chime in any time you want - to be frank though, I started ignoring that spam post either the second or third time I saw it - not sure which, but it definitely was before the fourth and fifth time.
>>My suggestion was to ignore trolling, not trolls.
A fine suggestion if you're in a suggesting mood - and I'll tell you what - next time I come to YOUR blog, I'll feel obliged to follow your "suggestions" - but in the meantime you can stop with the lecture and the wagging finger.
Sorry I got between you and your good buddy Walter - I'm sure you will have a very nice educational two-sided conversation. As for me, Walter's proven over and over that he has no place setting discussion of any kind on this board no matter how reasonable he may sometimes appear to be - I've just seen him hijack way too many threads for his own agenda.
Mac says: "I guess I've just spent too much time with Quakers. They convinced me that it is worthwhile to play by the rules, whether the other guy does or not."
Would that more people would spend time with us. You don't have to accept our theological views, or the politics that many of us have - but we have a lot of practice at making decisions that a wide variety of divergent views can accept. All of this back-stabbing and name-calling that is going on now is so...inefficient.
dickcheneyb4cheneydicksyou states about the current occupant of the Presidency: "He knows, Rove knows, they all do, that in stature, charisma, everything, he disappears beside Clinton!"
I was watching some 'Stand-up Comedy' on Comedy Central last night and a comedian said that she missed Clinton, that he was 'like the really cool substitute teacher' that you had. The audience went wild with applause. Then she said 'and now we have mean Mr. Bush', with a few boos, she continued with 'but to be fair, he has had a hard time since he took office...he could use a vacation - and then maybe we could get Clinton to fill in!' and the crowd went even wilder with applause....
"This all brings up a big fundamental question for me: should the Senate be re-engineered to make it "more democratic"?"
How, other than firing them all. i think there are at least two requirements to make all politics fair.
1. Term limits. Eight years and they are gone.
2. Public financing. No pacs, no lobbying. Nothing to stand between the politician and the will of his constituents.
I fail to see how term limits creates a more democractic institution. If we are truly a democracy (which, I'll admit, we're not; rather, we're a "republic" or "representative democracy"), then the people should be able to elect the same old fart for 100 years.
The public financing dealio is a much more tenable solution, IMNSHO. Remove the influence of concentrated wealth (corporations, rich bastards) on concentration of power, and the people in the sense of "one person, one vote" do get to exercise their franchise. Then #1 becomes unnecessary.
Taking that a step further, should we also amend the Constitution itself so small states like mine (VT) don't get the exact same representation as big states like CA? That would be more in line with a "one person, one vote" philosophy.
If you do that, then what's the point of having a separate House of Representatives?
The 2 houses just will have a different level of granularity. A bicameral leg doesn't necessarily require any particular proportional arrangement--our current structure is a reflection of a compromise between large states (wanted a proportional rep) and small (wanted equal rep). We have a House and Senate in Vermont, and both are proportional, just at different levels of population.
George Will should stick to writing about baseball. The problem is, he doesn't know anything about that subject either.
I object! The DH is an evil that must be wiped clean from the face of the earth, and I'd like to have a real pennant race again some day...
I'll support making the Senate's operations more democratic, more "majority rules," when the election of Senators is made democratic and the majority rules.
But that's the question. Do we *want* to be more democractic, or does the Senate, with its weird structure, protect the minority? Maybe it truly is the saucer that cools what comes out of the House (the mob)...
Okay, regarding the "nuclear option":
1) Is the parliamentarian on board with this? Just because he was appointed by the Republicans doesn't mean that he would necessarily be willing to make a joke of his entire office.
2) Is every single republican (other than Chafee? Do the Dems have 49, with Chafee being the 50th?) going to support this decision? I'd think that there'd be at least some more scrupulous types who would oppose this.
So unless the parliamentarian and every single Republican can be co-opted, the "nuclear option" can't actually be used, can it?
So unless the parliamentarian and every single Republican can be co-opted, the "nuclear option" can't actually be used, can it?
Theoretically this is correct.
The question is, can Frist and the rest of the junta bully their "colleagues" enough to keep them in lockstep with the party line.
What leverage do they even have to bully the parliamentarian? Could they fire him and appoint a new parliamentarian who would be more amenable?
They could probably do anything they wanted. Or, at least, they would just do it and worry about shaking out the legalities later.
Nixon tried that with his Attorneys General. Didn't go over real well.
The Republicans, juveniles all, tend to fantasize about doomsday solutions to problems of divided government. During the budget crisis of 1995, which led to the government shutdown, Newt Gingrich floated the idea of defaulting on the government debt. Of course they didn't go through with it then, and they probably won't now.
The book walter cronkite refernbces "Masters of the Senate" is a MUST READ for people who want to understand what's going on in the Senate. The rule referenced is called the rule of cloture which requires 60 votes to end a debate and call a vote on a proposal. As Mr.Caro masterfully portrays in "The Master of the Senate" southern Democrats as a block, had enough votes to prevent civil rights voting legislation for many decades through the filibuster and the rule of cloture. If the repuglicans have a silver bullet which they could have broken this ugly procedure decades ago and they kept secret until now, I say "woe betide them."
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
