He's trying to discourage Harry Reid from 'going nuclear'-ending the filibuster for executive and maybe judicial nominees by the spectre of what he'll do when he's Senate Majority Leader.
"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Tuesday starkly warned Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) not to eliminate the filibuster on presidential nominations, threatening to end the 60-vote threshold for everything, including bills, if he becomes the majority leader."
“There not a doubt in my mind that if the majority breaks the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate with regard to nominations, the next majority will do it for everything,” McConnell said on the floor.
"With at least half a dozen key judicial and cabinet nominees pending, all of whom Republicans have problems with, Reid has threatened to invoke the so-called nuclear option to change the rules of the Senate and eliminate the filibuster on nominations — but not anything else."
"Backed up by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who echoed his warnings in a floor colloquy Tuesday, McConnell said his hypothetical majority would take it a step further."
“I wouldn’t be able to argue, a year and a half from now if I were the majority leader, to my colleagues that we shouldn’t enact our legislative agenda with a simple 51 votes, having seen what the previous majority just did,” he said. “I mean there would be no rational basis for that.”
"The minority leader sketched out what a Republican-led Senate would do with 51 votes. Job No. 1, he said, would be to repeal Obamacare. He also mentioned lifting the ban on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, approving the Keystone XL pipeline and repealing the estate tax (which he called the “death tax”)."
“These are the kinds of priorities that our members feel strongly about, and I think I would be hard pressed,” McConnell said, “to argue that we should restrain ourselves from taking full advantage of this new Senate.”
“From the country’s point of view, it’s a huge step in the wrong direction,” he said
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/mcconnell-reid-nuclear-option-filibuster.php?ref=fpa
I'll give McConnell that-that entire GOP wish list would be a-very-huge step in the wrong direction. Still, I hope Reid and the Democrats don't let McConnell scare them off. Actually, I'm not so sure the filibuster shouldn't be gone for everything. I'm not at all persuaded that there is anything democratic about the filibuster; historically it's always been used for the wrong reasons. It tends to impose unpopular ideas on the majority. The etymology of so much of the allegedly 'august' Senate procedural rules were just a means to enabling the old slave holding South to dominate the country for 60 years and then enabling the South to maintain segregation for 100 years.
You can argue that in principle it can be used for less sordid means-like stopping the repeal of Obamacare or the GOP voting to repeal Roe v. Wade-yet historically its usage has been sordid. In reality the whole Senate system was crafted to be undemocratic; the filibuster but even the way each state receives 2 senators regardless of the state's population; it goes back to the Missouri Compromise and the 3/5 of a man compromise.
Maybe we should try it without the filibuster at all. On the other hand, McConnell in speaking of when he becomes Senate Majority Leader assumes facts not in evidence like when exactly he thinks this will happen. In truth he looks like he may just be in a life and death struggle to even hold onto his seat.
Let's hope the Dems stay the course. That McConnell's idea of negotiating is yet again threats of blowing up the world if he doesn't get his way-like all GOPers the only song he knows is My Way or the Highway!-actually underscores how badly the nuclear option is needed.
Indeed, Greg Sargent now argues that with Senator Frank Lautenberg's passing-currently filled by a temporary GOP Chris Christy pick-the Dems may have a very close margin for error in passing the nuclear option-the votes may be there but it's close and it could entail Vice President Joe Biden casting the tiebreaker. The White House has assure Reid he has their support. However, it does underscore the precariousness of going for it now.
Still, the Dems need to be strong here. What Lautenberg's untimely death has done is accelerated the level of bluff and brinkmanship. The Dems can't afford to blink first if they want this. And they have to want this-otherwise the GOP can throw a monkey wrench in the President's agenda.
"Lautenberg’s passing means Dems now only have 54 votes in the Senate. (His temporary Republican replacement can’t be expected to back rules reform.) Aides who are tracking the vote count tell me that Senator Carl Levin (a leading opponent of the “nuke option” when it was ruled out at the beginning of the year, leading to the watered down bipartisan filibuster reform compromise) is all but certain to oppose any rules change by simple majority. Senators Patrick Leahy and Mark Pryor remain question marks. And Senator Jack Reed is a Maybe."
"If Dems lose those four votes, that would bring them down to 50. And, aides note, that would mean Biden’s tie-breaking vote would be required to get back up to the 51 required for a simple Senate majority. That’s an awfully thin margin for error."
"But the mere fact that Biden’s potential role as tie-breaker is being discussed underscores just how precarious the push for a change in the rules really is. And this makes things very tricky for Dems right now. They need to escalate the threat level in order to force Senate Republicans to drop their unprecedented opposition to Obama’s nominations. Currently they are expected to filibuster Obama’s pick as Labor Secretary and his choices to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Environmental Protection Agency, and they are threatening to oppose his three nominations for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. All of these are key to Obama’s ability to move his agenda forward. But the numbers are such that we simply can’t be sure whether Dems can make good on the threat to change the rules by hitting the nuke button. This could embolden Republican obstructionism further."
"On the other hand, Democrats really may be able to muster that 51 votes, particularly since Biden is presumably available as a tie-breaker. And if Republicans do conclude Reid can’t get the votes and call his bluff by continuing with their current levels of obstructionism, Dems will have no choice but to try to change the rules — an effort that could sill succeed."
"All of which is to say that while Lautenberg’s passing has put the Dems’ ability to change the rules in peril, it has also increased the potential for more brinksmanship — and more miscalculation. Anyone who is telling you they know how this is going to end is lying to you."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/17/do-senate-dems-have-the-votes-for-the-nuclear-option/
So McConnell's threats are part of the staring contest. This is not the time for the Dems to blink.
"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Tuesday starkly warned Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) not to eliminate the filibuster on presidential nominations, threatening to end the 60-vote threshold for everything, including bills, if he becomes the majority leader."
“There not a doubt in my mind that if the majority breaks the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate with regard to nominations, the next majority will do it for everything,” McConnell said on the floor.
"With at least half a dozen key judicial and cabinet nominees pending, all of whom Republicans have problems with, Reid has threatened to invoke the so-called nuclear option to change the rules of the Senate and eliminate the filibuster on nominations — but not anything else."
"Backed up by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who echoed his warnings in a floor colloquy Tuesday, McConnell said his hypothetical majority would take it a step further."
“I wouldn’t be able to argue, a year and a half from now if I were the majority leader, to my colleagues that we shouldn’t enact our legislative agenda with a simple 51 votes, having seen what the previous majority just did,” he said. “I mean there would be no rational basis for that.”
"The minority leader sketched out what a Republican-led Senate would do with 51 votes. Job No. 1, he said, would be to repeal Obamacare. He also mentioned lifting the ban on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, approving the Keystone XL pipeline and repealing the estate tax (which he called the “death tax”)."
“These are the kinds of priorities that our members feel strongly about, and I think I would be hard pressed,” McConnell said, “to argue that we should restrain ourselves from taking full advantage of this new Senate.”
“From the country’s point of view, it’s a huge step in the wrong direction,” he said
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/mcconnell-reid-nuclear-option-filibuster.php?ref=fpa
I'll give McConnell that-that entire GOP wish list would be a-very-huge step in the wrong direction. Still, I hope Reid and the Democrats don't let McConnell scare them off. Actually, I'm not so sure the filibuster shouldn't be gone for everything. I'm not at all persuaded that there is anything democratic about the filibuster; historically it's always been used for the wrong reasons. It tends to impose unpopular ideas on the majority. The etymology of so much of the allegedly 'august' Senate procedural rules were just a means to enabling the old slave holding South to dominate the country for 60 years and then enabling the South to maintain segregation for 100 years.
You can argue that in principle it can be used for less sordid means-like stopping the repeal of Obamacare or the GOP voting to repeal Roe v. Wade-yet historically its usage has been sordid. In reality the whole Senate system was crafted to be undemocratic; the filibuster but even the way each state receives 2 senators regardless of the state's population; it goes back to the Missouri Compromise and the 3/5 of a man compromise.
Maybe we should try it without the filibuster at all. On the other hand, McConnell in speaking of when he becomes Senate Majority Leader assumes facts not in evidence like when exactly he thinks this will happen. In truth he looks like he may just be in a life and death struggle to even hold onto his seat.
Let's hope the Dems stay the course. That McConnell's idea of negotiating is yet again threats of blowing up the world if he doesn't get his way-like all GOPers the only song he knows is My Way or the Highway!-actually underscores how badly the nuclear option is needed.
Indeed, Greg Sargent now argues that with Senator Frank Lautenberg's passing-currently filled by a temporary GOP Chris Christy pick-the Dems may have a very close margin for error in passing the nuclear option-the votes may be there but it's close and it could entail Vice President Joe Biden casting the tiebreaker. The White House has assure Reid he has their support. However, it does underscore the precariousness of going for it now.
Still, the Dems need to be strong here. What Lautenberg's untimely death has done is accelerated the level of bluff and brinkmanship. The Dems can't afford to blink first if they want this. And they have to want this-otherwise the GOP can throw a monkey wrench in the President's agenda.
"Lautenberg’s passing means Dems now only have 54 votes in the Senate. (His temporary Republican replacement can’t be expected to back rules reform.) Aides who are tracking the vote count tell me that Senator Carl Levin (a leading opponent of the “nuke option” when it was ruled out at the beginning of the year, leading to the watered down bipartisan filibuster reform compromise) is all but certain to oppose any rules change by simple majority. Senators Patrick Leahy and Mark Pryor remain question marks. And Senator Jack Reed is a Maybe."
"If Dems lose those four votes, that would bring them down to 50. And, aides note, that would mean Biden’s tie-breaking vote would be required to get back up to the 51 required for a simple Senate majority. That’s an awfully thin margin for error."
"But the mere fact that Biden’s potential role as tie-breaker is being discussed underscores just how precarious the push for a change in the rules really is. And this makes things very tricky for Dems right now. They need to escalate the threat level in order to force Senate Republicans to drop their unprecedented opposition to Obama’s nominations. Currently they are expected to filibuster Obama’s pick as Labor Secretary and his choices to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Environmental Protection Agency, and they are threatening to oppose his three nominations for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. All of these are key to Obama’s ability to move his agenda forward. But the numbers are such that we simply can’t be sure whether Dems can make good on the threat to change the rules by hitting the nuke button. This could embolden Republican obstructionism further."
"On the other hand, Democrats really may be able to muster that 51 votes, particularly since Biden is presumably available as a tie-breaker. And if Republicans do conclude Reid can’t get the votes and call his bluff by continuing with their current levels of obstructionism, Dems will have no choice but to try to change the rules — an effort that could sill succeed."
"All of which is to say that while Lautenberg’s passing has put the Dems’ ability to change the rules in peril, it has also increased the potential for more brinksmanship — and more miscalculation. Anyone who is telling you they know how this is going to end is lying to you."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/17/do-senate-dems-have-the-votes-for-the-nuclear-option/
So McConnell's threats are part of the staring contest. This is not the time for the Dems to blink.
No comments:
Post a Comment