The threat is real. We know the GOP's level of irresponsibility where it will do anything for partisan gain never mind the good of the country. This is a party that would gladly rather have a depression if it gives them a better chance to gain back power as they've repeatedly shown the last 4 years. All that mattered was as Mitch McConnell put it 'making Obama a one term President.' Compared to that what was concern over the country suffering through the worst recession since the Great Depression?
So yes. McConnell and friends are telling us that if Reid ends the filibuster for executive nominees, then the GOP will feel wholly justified in ending it period next time they have power in the Senate. That all they have to offer at this late date is more threats tells you that the only way to make them see reason is to fight back. You can't buckle to their blackmail. Reid now admits that he made the wrong call in the deal with McConnell in January-'I ate shit' he admits.
At a minimum it's very true that this might well be just the start. If the rules are changed now with 51 votes they may well be again with 51 votes-whether we have a GOP Senate soon or not-the Dems may go further at some point which they probably should, honestly. I mean we need another liberal on the SJC badly as the recent anti Voting Rights Act ruling proves.
Yet, despite the fact that there are risks, there are even greater risks in doing nothing. The status quo is not worth fighting for-a record number of filibusters in the 4 and a half years of Obama's Presidency.
"Sources say Reid appears to have the 51 votes needed to change the rules. The only Democratic senator to speak up against the move at the Thursday lunch was Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, who — along with Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas — is expected to vote against the nuclear option. Democratic sources said Reid has won over one wavering Old Bull, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). But two other Democrats, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Max Baucus of Montana, are still undecided."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/the-start-of-the-filibusters-end-94062_Page2.html#ixzz2YsHVwLIO
Even when the GOP tries to make the argument for the Dems not going through with this it's not very compelling:
"Part of what is driving Reid is the fact that he leads an increasingly junior caucus in which a majority of his 54 members have never served a day in the minority."
I mean if fear of what the GOP will do if./when they have their majority if the only argument to keep the filibuster then I don't think there's a good reason not to get rid of it. Sometimes dong nothing is the more risky choice even if the only action carries with it considerable risk. This is one of those times.
So yes. McConnell and friends are telling us that if Reid ends the filibuster for executive nominees, then the GOP will feel wholly justified in ending it period next time they have power in the Senate. That all they have to offer at this late date is more threats tells you that the only way to make them see reason is to fight back. You can't buckle to their blackmail. Reid now admits that he made the wrong call in the deal with McConnell in January-'I ate shit' he admits.
At a minimum it's very true that this might well be just the start. If the rules are changed now with 51 votes they may well be again with 51 votes-whether we have a GOP Senate soon or not-the Dems may go further at some point which they probably should, honestly. I mean we need another liberal on the SJC badly as the recent anti Voting Rights Act ruling proves.
Yet, despite the fact that there are risks, there are even greater risks in doing nothing. The status quo is not worth fighting for-a record number of filibusters in the 4 and a half years of Obama's Presidency.
"Sources say Reid appears to have the 51 votes needed to change the rules. The only Democratic senator to speak up against the move at the Thursday lunch was Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, who — along with Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas — is expected to vote against the nuclear option. Democratic sources said Reid has won over one wavering Old Bull, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). But two other Democrats, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Max Baucus of Montana, are still undecided."
"Still, senators in both parties were nervous about proceeding to the nuclear option given that leaders in both parties, including Reid, have studiously avoided it for years. Now that Reid appears poised to go that route, senators said it would set a new precedent that future parties would undoubtedly exploit.
“I understand the fear of going there,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), “but the fear of not doing something at this point basically permanently keeps this a pretty dysfunctional body.”
“It will be the end of the Senate,” warned Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/the-start-of-the-filibusters-end-94062_Page2.html#ixzz2YsHVwLIO
Even when the GOP tries to make the argument for the Dems not going through with this it's not very compelling:
"Part of what is driving Reid is the fact that he leads an increasingly junior caucus in which a majority of his 54 members have never served a day in the minority."
"Yet while the effort is being driven largely by senators from the 2006 and 2008 classes, it is also backed by some veterans, like Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa.), who has long called for a dismantling of the filibuster.
While Harkin said it “bothers” him that using the nuclear option could lead to further rules changes on executive and judicial nominees as well as legislation, he’s over it."
“When, not if, but when the Republicans take charge of the Senate again and they have a Republican president, they will change those rules. Guarantee it,” Harkin said.
"Alexander, a longtime institutionalist, agrees, saying now it would be far harder to tell future Republican majority leaders to forgo eliminating the filibuster if Reid acts next week. Alexander claimed it would allow future Republican-led Senates to easily approve a laundry list of GOP dreams: national right-to-work laws, finishing the Keystone XL pipeline, repealing Obamacare and altering Dodd-Frank financial rules."
“We’ll take our case to the people, we’ll argue for a new majority and then Republicans will be in a position to do whatever Republicans with 51 votes want to do,” Alexander said. “The more we think about it, the more attractive it becomes.”
I mean if fear of what the GOP will do if./when they have their majority if the only argument to keep the filibuster then I don't think there's a good reason not to get rid of it. Sometimes dong nothing is the more risky choice even if the only action carries with it considerable risk. This is one of those times.
No comments:
Post a Comment