« Not buying a bumper sticker | Main | E. Coli Conservatism In Action »

October 07, 2007

Comments

Oh man, Charles Bird would sh** a brick if he ever acknowledged this sort of thing...

If there's a single reason why the Democrats need to pick up four or five more seats int he Senate in 2008, it's to make people like the Nelsons (Ben and Bill) or Lieberman or any of those others as irrelevant as possible.

"Normal people can simply decide to stop mounting filibusters, but apparently Republicans have lost the capacity to do this by normal means..."

I would suppose that there are political costs involved. Just like the democrats in congress rallied to support the Iraq war, not because they thought it was a good idea, but because it would pass anyway and they thought it might be embarrassing to have voted against in the future... maybe it's costly for a republican to break ranks and not partake in filibusters? Especially if it's you, and just you, who blocks the whole thing?

So, they would want to coordinate. The more people the blame can be spread around on, when a filibuster fails, the more bearable it becomes politically. It makes sense, is a good thing, and I see no point in bashing them for it.

Can someone refresh my memory on why "filibusters" no longer require the spectacular endurance that they did when Strom Thurmond was conducting them?

i like it. tough love.

a few other points:

1 - Dems might also want to taste the forbidden fruit. I think one thing that Dems forget is that they can block stuff too. If you could assemble a progressive "Gang of 40", you could essentially prevent horrible FISA legislation and -- if you want to really go nuts -- stop war funding.

I actually did the math on this, and i don't think there are 40 senators who would do this, but it's fairly close.

2 - incertus - i think ben nelson should not be slandered by including him with lieberman. with nelson, we should be happy with the vote for Reid and let him do whatever the hell he wants. check out the 2004 nebraska presidential tally. lieberman is of course totally different.

he's a wanker because he chooses to be.

It does make sense for a sub group to work together. If your group has the votes to ensure a bill gets through the filibuster, it gives that group leverage to get things they want back.

Believe it or not, there is another side to the number of cloture votes. A cloture vote does not mean there was a preexisting filibuster. It just means that the majority has decided it's time to end debate and time to end the possibility of any amendments.

Reasonable Republicans believe that Democratic Senators are shutting them out of the process by limiting amendments and yes, by bringing so many cloture votes.

I'm not sure I completely understand it or agree, but people I know who know about these things do not necessarily count the number of cloture votes as something bad that Republicans are doing. Some think that it indicates something bad that Democrats are doing.

As I say, believe it or not.

CVSG, thanks, but I don't believe it. Too much history and much dissappointment with the congressional Democratic leadership to really believe they acting as ruthlessly as Republicans.

Wow, I really should proof read my comments before posting.

Reasonable Republicans believe that Democratic Senators are shutting them out of the process by limiting amendments and yes, by bringing so many cloture votes.

"Reasonable Republicans" [you know, the kind who don't believe in wars of aggression, torture, or the abolition of social security], having been on the endangered species list since the Reagan Adminstration, became extinct in 2001 . . .

Reasonable Republicans believe that Democratic Senators are shutting them out of the process by limiting amendments and yes, by bringing so many cloture votes.

Any Republican who voted to marginalize the Democrats from 2002-2006 has no complaints. Could you name some reasonable Republicans who are being unfairly treated?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad