If Obama loses and Republicans take the Senate, the filibuster is dead as Dillinger:
“Here is a once in a lifetime chance to implement real revolutionary change, and once we do it it will be years before it can be undone by a Democratic president,” Ornstein says, characterizing likely GOP thinking. “If you believe that Americans will love deregulation and budet cuts once they get them, you’re going to take the big long term hit to get the short term gain.”
The question would then become how they go about getting around the filibuster. Ornstein predicts Republicans might change the rules right up front. Or they could jam a whole bunch of stuff through via the simple-majority “reconciliation” process, such as big tax and spending cuts, repealing parts of health care and Wall Street reform, and reinstating any defense spending cuts mandated by the failure of the supercommittee. After that they could pursue changes to the filibuster via an array of other procedural tactics.
I don’t like the phrase “must win” — I agree with the football coach who said “football games aren’t must win, World War II was a must win” — but this election is a “must win”. If Republicans get control, they will not miss their chance to blow.
Bear that in mind, Obama-haters.
BGinCHI
Agreed, Doug, that if the GOP wins the election they are going to burn down the welfare state in as many of its incarnations as they can find. The demographics are against them and they are going to try to get their hands on as many shekels as they can.
But….they aren’t going to win. Obama will get reelected and the Village, which lurvs them some status quo, will rally behind a shattered GOP, help them blame the Tea Party, allow for the rise of candidates with Hayekian Modesty but no crazy culture war positions that they will admit to in public, and restore the shitty two-party system.
PeakVT
I think the “gentlemen’s agreement” between Reid and Mitchell is still in effect, but Mitchell will pause for no more than a nanosecond before blowing it up if he’s ML with a Republican president in 2013
Violet
Republicans are classic whiny children: “If I can’t have my way, no one can.” They’ll destroy everything rather than let people they don’t like have anything. They need a time out.
Pococurante
Both parties want the filibuster. Otherwise it would have died by now. It is too useful to give political cover.
Irony Abounds
I predicted the filibuster was history if Repubs win in a comment about a week ago. If there is a Republican President, the changes that will be made will boggle the mind, because as noted above, this will be their last best chance before demographics shows them the door to the dustbin of history like the Federalists and the Whigs.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
This is why, alas, I’ll end up voting for Blanche McCaskil here in Misery. Not just because of the loons who’ve lined up on the other side to run against her but because I know full well that even if Obama wins, if he has both houses of Congress in Repup hands, he might as well resign the day after he’s inaugurated because he sure as shit won’t get *anything* done afterwards.
Blanche is a shitty, scared Democrat but given the environment we face, it’s once again “crawl over glass” time.
TooManyJens
@BGinCHI:
God, it’s so true, and so depressing.
c u n d gulag
Demographics are against them.
That’s why they’re trying so hard right now to change the voting rules.
And if they get in due to voter suppression, or the general laziness, stupidity, and ignorance of the American voters in 2012, 2014, or 2016, before those demographics really kick in, they’ll bend every rule, and make-up new ones, to make their changes as permanent as possible.
So, if/when they do eventually lose, it’ll take Liberals and Progressives a generation or two just to get back to where we are now.
Brachiator
@BGinCHI:
Demographics don’t mean shit if you control the White House, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, and are also doing as much damage as you can at the state level.
It’s like somebody saying, “yeah, I realize that the Vandals are sacking Rome, but don’t worry, the demographics are in our favor.”
You either stop this vile shit now, or get ready to sit in the rubble for decades, crying bitter tears.
Hal
Romney barely won MI. How well is he possibly going to do in the general election against Obama?
Still, I think it’s a message that needs to be stressed. It’s much too easy to fall into the “they’re all the same” bullshit and end up with 4 to 8 years of Republican disaster.
Loneoak
Only slightly OT, check out what Obama did with the NDAA. The military detention provision that the GOP designed as a poison pill and the Firebaggers thought meant the permanent revocation of the Constitution, is now essentially unenforceable. Obama gave the GOP another hearty fuck you on this. Will anyone who freaked out when it was signed notice? I know IRL two people who vowed to vote for Nader over this.
BGinCHI
@Brachiator: I agree with you, but you sound like a dick agreeing with me. Congrats.
malraux
@Pococurante: Kinda. Both parties want the filibuster, but not necessarily at the same time. Clearly the minority party wants it regardless of who it is, but Republicans are a lot quicker to upend norms of operations to gain temporary advantages.
The filibuster cannot last much longer in its current form. One party or the other will discard it. And once its gone, it’ll never come back. Being able to pass legislation is far more important that some abstract political cover idea. Its just a matter of which party will gain the first advantage.
Palli
@c u n d gulag:
You are forgetting electronic ballot tabulation fraud. It has worked well for up to now, of course, it will be used again.
Loneoak
@BGinCHI:
Hey dude, how’s the munchkin? Mine is almost as big as Tunch now.
Palli
@Brachiator:
We already didn’t stop this shit now.
Holden Pattern
@Loneoak:
1) This is a good thing.
2) It’s an executive decision, which will be reversed or ignored the moment either a Republican President wins or whenever a Democratic President (including this one) decides that it’s inconvenient.
So, yes, I am glad that the President has elected to lay in these procedures today to reduce the present effect of the horrible law he signed. But I prefer rule of law to rule of men — I don’t place much trust in magic leaders.
Seebach
Norm Ornstein works for the American enterprise institute, right? But he never seems like a crazy conservative. Every time I see him, he’s very matter of fact. Just a consummate professional or what?
Brachiator
@Palli:
Not completely. But I tire of this passive shit where people expect the Demographic shift to rescue their sorry asses. Fight or surrender.
@BGinCHI:
To quote Daniel Craig’s James Bond in Casino Royale:
Do I look like I give a damn?
Tractarian
This is completely wrong. The GOP ain’t getting rid of the filibuster anytime soon.
Think about the logic of Sargent’s piece for a second. He suggests that, because demographic trends will doom the GOP, they will want to take immediate advantage if they gain unified control of the federal government; therefore, they will seek to eliminate the filibuster. He calls this the “Democrats’ Nightmare Scenario.”
Did you catch the problem with this logic? It’s right there in his premise: demographic trends will doom the GOP. So why in the world would the GOP want to make it much easier for a bare majority to pass laws, just when they are headed for a long period of being the out-party? Sounds like the GOP’s nightmare scenario to me.
It simply does not make sense for GOP to eliminate the filibuster. (Especially considering there’s a still a cadre of conservative Dems in the Senate ready to sell out their party in the name of bipartisanship.)
Billy Beane
…but Obama won’t lose and will probably win the House and if Republicans do take the senate they won’t have the votes to change anything because the Dems would just ….urrum filibuster.
So why are you posting this dot connecting nonsense???
It sure is tough out there for a gloom porn addict these days. Just too much good news on the economic front. So now you idiots gotta resort to these ridiculous mental masturbation exercises to create gloomy scenarios.
Hey, here’s an idea. How about posting something positive for a change. They just announced today that economic growth for the past quarter has been revised upwards. Post about that and cheer the fuck up!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-29/u-s-economy-expands-at-3-annual-pace-greater-than-economists-estimated.html
BGinCHI
@Loneoak: He’s great. Making a lot of talky noise and smiling a lot. Nice and chubby and happy. Man, they change fast, don’t they?
Still planning on Santa Cruz Memorial Day weekend (have a wedding on Saturday). Maybe still a get together?
bemused
@BGinCHI:
Any government assistance (to the wrong people) would be the first things they dynamite, debt/deficits would probably not even be on their radar screen. Some guy at Daily Caller, Brion McClanahan, wrote yesterday how the Food Stamp and other gov’t assistance programs should be run. He said there should be humiliation and pain for anyone on welfare and they should lose their right to vote. His rant was long and detailed on how to humiliate food stamps recipients because they need to be reminded they are “spitting on the principles of independence”. Sick freak.
redshirt
This a HUGE election nationally, maybe as big as 2008. If Obama wins and gets both Houses back, we’ve got 2-4 years to implement real change.
Obama wins with a divided House – fun n’ games continues
Obama wins with both Houses Repub – bring on the Impeachment for Whatever!
Repukes win WH and both Houses? Stock up on bread making machines and gardening tools. End Times are upon us.
Loneoak
@BGinCHI:
Yeah, definitely. I know a kidlet-friendly microbrewery with some outdoor space which is a really nice afternoon hangout.
Loneoak
@Holden Pattern:
And the NDAA was a rule slipped into a budget, which can relatively easily be undone.
malraux
@Tractarian:
If you think the GOP is playing the long game, you need to re-evaluate your premises. The demographic trends are dooming the GOP specifically because they are playing exclusively the short game, doing whatever the can to get an ever shrinking group to continue voting for them even at the expense of the long game. Its like arguing that a ceo wouldn’t worry about hitting quarterly numbers at the expense of the company’s long term survival.
BGinCHI
@Loneoak: It’s a deal. Let’s touch base when we get our plan nailed down.
wrb
@Tractarian:
It makes sense because they don’t believe that demographic trends doom them. They are smelling permanent majority if they win this one.
Unlike most here, I think they are probably right.
ShadeTail
@Holden Pattern:
On the one hand, you’re absolutely right that having a good law is more important than having a good leader.
On the other hand, this pretty badly undermines all the “Obama is a backstabbing fascist!” whiners who got themselves all worked up over this. And it also serves as serious proof that one political party really is better than the other.
kindness
What is it with some of you? You got kevindrummitis or something? Kevin also thinks Republicans are honor bound to keep the filibuster but what in the last 20 years history of that party has shown one ounce of deference to an ‘agreement’ that stopped them from doing everything they could to kill their opposition?
The Republican Party has no honor, no integrity. The Republican Party has no principles other than fvcking the libs and the Democrats every single chance they get. That is what they have shown us since the Clinton Administration is all they care about. OK, that and throwing even more money at their rich Daddies.
Kevin Drum is an idiot sometimes. Sally Quinn must throw awesome parties.
Loneoak
@BGinCHI:
Cool. My junk email that I don’t mind sharing in a forum is trnpkrt at gmail.
malraux
@Billy Beane:
There are two ways to nix the filibuster. First, there’s the nuclear option. Basically, 51 senators just vote on legislation and declare it passed. Because the only limit against doing that is the senate’s agreed upon rules and the inability of a legislative body to prevent itself from changing its mind, that would (probably) work, though it more or less tosses out all senate rules. Secondly, at the start of a senate session, they just vote to eliminate the filibuster. This works a bit better because it doesn’t trash all other senate rules. But yeah, there are ways to get rid of the filibuster beyond the 2/3 must vote to change the rules rule.
PeakVT
@kindness: Uh, Drum lives in Orange County and has since he began blogging.
Elizabelle
@BGinCHI:
I would not any of us assume that Obama is going to be re-elected.
There is so much that could go wrong.
Feet on the ground — ours — contacting and registering voters — might counter all the money and insanity and ugliness that will fly this late summer and fall.
Obama could lose. Bet on it.
And it’s vitally important to keep the Senate and try to recapture the House, which seems do-able, particularly with the GOP overreach on social and economic issues.
I worry a lot that communicating with each other on a blog is giving us a safe world, where we really should be communicating with voters in our nonvirtual world.
No telling what the SuperPACS plus a center-right media can do this fall.
Unexplored territory.
ShadeTail
No way are the Repub party going to get rid of the filibuster if they win control of the Senate. Just like the Democratic party, they prefer to hedge their bets for when they’re in the minority. And it’s more effective for them to have it because they’re shameless about abusing it.
The Democratic party aren’t going to get rid of it either, but they should. The filibuster is a road block for them when they’re in the majority, and they rarely ever use it when they’re in the minority. Also, the best weapon they have against the Repubs is the Repubs’ own extremism. The filibuster gives the Repubs cover to hide just how radical they’ve become.
bemused
@Seebach:
Ornstein is friends with Al Franken and also from Minnesota. Franken often had Ornstein on his Air America radio show.
malraux
@ShadeTail: The republicans almost used the nuclear option over a few judges in 05, only backing down when the democrats agreed to basically give in to all the republican demands. In another sweep election type event, I find it hard to believe that they would show more restraint.
Zifnab
Remind me again why that’s a bad thing? When did we start liking the filibuster?
PeakVT
@Zifnab: The point is that the filibuster won’t be there to save the country from the Republicans, and anyone who votes for Republicans thinking it will be there is a fool.
ReflectedSky
@malraux:
I don’t think that’s quite right. The GOP/Conservative/Evangelical/Koch/Etc. alliance has definitely been playing a long game. That took some fancy planning to put in all those guys like Walker and move all that anti-worker and voter suppression legislation in lockstep. I realize that you could argue that’s a short-term solution, but I don’t think that’s the way they perceive it, and in any case, they’ve been carefully, relentlessly pushing the Overton Window, financing bogus think tanks, and doing lots of other things to gain a long term advantage for a while. Their short term strategies wouldn’t work without that underlying them.
I think they’ll get rid of it if they have a slim majority, because they will be confident they can bring it back when they need it. They’re not going to sit on their hands with 51 votes. Only a sucker would do that. Even if they only control the Senate, and can’t get anything passed, I think they’ll still move legislation, because they understand how crucial it is to keep that toxic messaging coming. And there’s plenty of evidence that Obama would play handsy with them, and help them pressure Pelosi. I totally get why you guys think Obama is not Satan, but I don’t get why anyone would be confident he’ll do anything to support positive legislation. He has gone out of his way to protect precisely the most corrupt, failed industries and elites that are causing all the problems. Has Steny Hoyer been visiting the White House recently? It wouldn’t surprise me.
Those “rotten borough,” practically empty states where the Senators are owned by various industries will keep the Senate from being an actual democratic institution even without the filibuster, at least to some degree. I’d like to see a movement to strip states of two Senators if they don’t have the population of say, half a county in New York or California. I believe my neighborhood — just my neighborhood — has a higher population than North Dakota.
ShadeTail
@malraux:
Yes, I remember that. First, I think they were bluffing. Second, it wouldn’t have been such a bad thing anyway. The bottom line is, the filibuster helps the Repubs much more than it helps the Democrats.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
It will be bigger than the Beatles getting back together.
penpen
Posted in another thread but I realized this one is more relevant — does anyone have a link to a good blog post or article laying out clearly why it matters to vote Democrat? I am besieged these days by moaners of the THERE’S ONLY ONE OPTION HIS NAME IS OBAMNEY stripe and I would like an easy repository to turn to for the many reasons this is bullshit. Thanks!
Tractarian
@kindness:
I for one never said anything like that. I think the GOP, even if they have complete control in 2013, will keep the filibuster out of pure, cold, rational self-interest. Not even Republicans are dumb enough to think that the other party will never have control of the government again.
@malraux:
The whole point of Sargent/Ornstein is that the Republicans know the demographic clock is ticking and that this is their only chance in the next decade or so to push through right-wing priorities. Therefore, eliminate the filibuster.
But if the GOP really thought they could amass a permanent majority beginning next year, why even bother tinkering with the filibuster? Just wait until you’ve got enough conservative Dems to give you 60 votes.
Tractarian
This is retarded. I defy you to give me one reason Obama is not Satan.
Holden Pattern
@ShadeTail:
Speaking as one of the whiners (though I did not use those words), I don’t really think it undermines the key point made by the whiners, which is that this should not have been law, because it hardens our bipartisan commitment to a police state.
Again, speaking as one of the whiners, there’s no doubt in my mind that the Republicans are insane, so I do think there’s a difference. It’s impossible not to be troubled by the degree of bipartisan agreement on things like the national security state, secrecy, subsidization of the parasitic finance industry, and increasingly, union-breaking, and the Dems’ fecklessness in confronting the Republican insanity on a number of other issues.
@Loneoak:
1) I thought under the rules that you weren’t allowed to do this kind of thing because the reconciliation rules are only for “budgets”. I guess this is an exception that only applies to the national security state, not health care. World’s Greatest Deliberative Body!
2) How do you figure? Do you think that there’s going to be ANY consistency on this point? Anyone who tries to undo this in a budget authorization will find it stripped out, and I also doubt that there’s 51 votes in the Senate (let alone 60) to repeal a git-tough-on-terrahism law, because our collective brains are completely broken on this shit.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@kindness:
The wingnuts don’t have any honor, you are correct. But they do have self interest, and like the democrats, they know full well to destroy the filibuster for legislation, is not in their interest longer term. Because they have been in the minority of that body much more than not, over a long period of time. They would get rid of the filibuster for executive sessions, but there is a rule bifurcation between the two sessions.@ShadeTail: or what Shadetail said.
edit – and anyone who knows much about how the senate works, knows there are many other ways to bring that body to a screeching halt, other than the filibuster for leg. It it what they mean with the phrase ‘blowing up the senate’ that runs on ‘unanimous’ consent.
eemom
@BGinCHI:
That is the first intelligent prognostication to appear on this blog in many a moon.
mk3872
If the GOP promises to undo the Senate filibuster, then I may just change my vote to Repub this year!
Sounds like a winning strategy. Time to kill that stupid antiquated Senate rule once and for all.
Sure, we’ll get crummy legislation for a few years. But we can all benefit from majority rules.
Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937
Somebody should get rid of the filibuster. It makes the undemcratic Senate even more undemocratic. Lets make little sh*t hole red states irrelevant like they belong.
wrb
Very long.
Beside buying the media, the most telling is how over the last 30 years through endowments and think tanks they’ve made made mainstream and economics that exists only to justify their pillage.
They think they’ve got in place what is needed to control an increasingly uninformed public.
Brachiator
@BGinCHI:
To quote Daniel Craig’s James Bond in Casino Royale:
Do I look like I give a damn?
Got moderated for deity knows what reason, in case a variation of this reply appears again. But I am astounded to see how many people think that a liberal demographic shift is a done deal. How many times in history have people been able to say, “we really didn’t do anything, we just waited for more people to be born, and they were automatically on our side.”
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
Reading the thread, looks like the firebaggers are mounting a comeback. You can’t hold back the stupid, but you can point and laugh.
eemom
@Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937:
Somebody should get rid of the fucking Senate.
Oh, and the Electoral College too while you’re at it. kthxbai.
ericblair
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
Also, you’ve got to differentiate the gooper’s self interest as a party versus each individual gooper senator’s self-interest. If they get a majority of 52 or 53 that means that killing the filibuster will diminish each senator’s individual power, since the leadership then doesn’t have to buy off every holdout on a bill but can ignore a couple. If the filibuster still exists, then they have to buy off everyone. If there’s a majority of exactly 51 then maybe, although it would depend on how many blue dogs are left to buy off.
I personally don’t think it would happen regardless of whether it’s actually a good thing or not, since every one of those bozos thinks the sun shines out of their wide stance. Subsuming themselves to the will of the group isn’t their bag, baby.
eemom
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
Tell me, mon General, is it just me or is teh stoopid particularly thick around here lately?
Look at that last post about Snowe and the whatsitsface party. It was almost artistic in its cluelessness.
Pococurante
@Tractarian:
No pointy ears, no forked tail?
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@eemom:
The O haters can only stay quiet for so long. Like needing to take a shit, sooner or later it happens. But they are swimming upstream these days, and never had much to begin with.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@ericblair:
It’s been said, each US Senator is his or hers little kingdom, with the kingly power ‘to object’. And that applies to everything, down to the color of the drapes. They all know that if their side kills the filibuster for leg, the other will blow up the senate with ‘I object’ making it necessary to vote on every fucking thing, essentially killing the senate dead as Caesar. If the wingers did this, it would be akin to an administrative act of war, and they would need to go all in for a coup. It would gut the whole premise of minority rights our system is based on.
Tom Q
I’m sorry, I have to laugh at the idea the GOP would preserve the filibuster because of what it might do to them down the line. This is, essentially, a party of Enron and Wall Street — people who did what was profitable in the short run with no awareness (or certainly no concern) they were burning down the house in the process.
And as far as what permanent damage can they inflict during a temporary period of power? The GOP held Congress for two years, 1947-48, and the Taft-Hartley Act still sits on the books.
Re: Norm Ornstein: he’s a terrifically fair, reasonable guy, a sort that used to be welcome as a Chafee Republican but now is toxic to the party. His AEI membership is of long standing; he’d never be admitted today.
ReflectedSky
Just want to say, now that I have apparently worked up the nerve to comment here (after lurking for years), that I hope I’m not being called a firebagger. That would be incorrect, and boring. There’s a lot of smarts on display here, which is one of the things I love about it. (Tunch being another.) There are plenty of solid reasons not to rave about President Obama’s performance in his first term. Belittling a progressive critique of him with a funny term designed to trash a political web site that’s slightly to the left of Balloon Juice seems pretty nuts to me. I follow Cole on Twitter. He retweets stuff from FDL on a regular basis — not to criticize, but to praise. Pretty sure he and other Balloon Juice front pagers positively reference FDL people on a regular basis. So while I don’t read FDL as much as BJ, I don’t think raising the concept that Obama is not, in fact, playing eleventh dimensional chess for the progressive side deserves a put-down here.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Tom Q:
The wingnuts could have done it under Bush, but to a member they rejected doing it for legislation, ever . So you really don’t have any evidence other than they are assholes, but even assholes don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, usually. Not saying they wouldn’t do it, but if they got on that horse, they would have to kill every other senate rule to get their way.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@ReflectedSky:
Pre whining is not really a good way to get started here. If you have something to say, then you will be asked to back it up. If not, probly best to stay quiet.
Keith G
Whip it. Whip it good!
Palli
@Brachiator:
planes fall from the sky
Will they ever be a republican whistleblower? Would they survive?
ReflectedSky
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero): Hmm…What is “pre-whining”? Is it considered worse than post-whining? I stayed quiet for years. Now I’m talking. That post isn’t my first, it isn’t even my first in the thread.
I guess the more basic question is, why drive off people who read and agree with much on this site, who are likely but unmotivated voters for Obama. If you dig him and want him to win, don’t you want to encourage people like me to feel welcome here? Why alienate someone who is a potential ally? Moreover, trying to invalidate an argument by labeling it with a pejorative, “in-crowd” term is pretty weak sauce, “General”.
Davo
@Tractarian
Just because it doesn’t make sense doesn’t mean they won’t do it. In fact, given their recent track record, I believe the above quote to be a great argument as to why they would do it.
Tom Q
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero): Three things:
The didn’t particularly NEED to do it under Bush, because Democrats didn’t use the filibuster as sine qua non the way the GOP has in the past three years. At this point, they KNOW the Dems will respond in kind if they go on such a rampage.
They didn’t fuck around with the nation’s full faith and credit under Bush, either. A significant portion of the GOP is now close to certified insane, well past what they were under Bush. (See also: what Pubs are doing in midwestern states, against vast public outcry)
Third, I agree with the general premise, that, even among the non-crazy portion of the GOP, they reconize they’re headed for some time in the electoral wilderness, and they want to lock in as much stuff as they can. (And knowing they’re headed for the wilderness regardless means they might as well shoot their wads)
But this is all moot, because Obama is going to be re-elected with, I believe, both houses of Congress going Dem.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@ReflectedSky:
I don’t care if you stay or go, or anyone else. And I am not a welcoming committee. Your comment led me to point out that when people post bullshit they can’t back up, then that is something that most on this blog wouldn’t consider as ‘being on their side’ or ‘agreeing with’. I don’t care whether you agree with me or not, I do care if and when you spread false info, especially about something I care about. This isn’t so much a debating society with rules, as it is a free for all. that is how the owner made it, and that is how it is. Each person has the freedom to say pretty much what they want, with a few hate speech exceptions, and even those often get by. And firebagger is a term that firebaggers gave themselves. And I didn’t call you one, yet.
PS – and I been called about every ‘pejorative’ on the books and some that aren’t. Water off a ducks back.
Tractarian
@ReflectedSky:
You reluctantly conceded that you could understand how some people might not think Obama is Satan. You also produced this nugget of wisdom:
You are a firebagger. Be proud!
It may be nuts, but it’s the bread and butter of this blog. A true long-time lurker would know that, it seems to me.
Palli
@Tom Q:
Mr. Ornstein, however, is an equivacator and stretches fair to make one side look respectable despite the outlandish prefabrication, as if nothing can ever be an intentional lie or an intentionally malicious action. As if citizens must not learn that our all elected representatives may not be good people at heart.
Listen again to his conversations on NPR during Nov.-Dec. of 2000. The truth isn’t always bi-partisan.
Tractarian
These are not the words of a potential ally. Rather, they are the false talking points of (cover your ears, children) a firebagger.
Jay in Oregon
Anyone else notice this?
North Korea agrees to suspend nuclear activities, US says
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Tom Q:
I do agree with this, but so far most of it is in the House. Senators change much less frequently and so do rules. Like I said, I’m not saying they won’t do it, but if they did, dems would shut the senate down. I don’t critique dems in the House and senate as much as many liberal activists. I think they have not followed the crazy largely for the reason that SOMEONE had to remain sane the past ten years or so. I think that has changed, as it is becoming obvious the wingnuts are dangerous and acting in nihilistic ways. And dems will do what needs doing regardless of maintaining some sense of comity, that has been a long tradition in that body, but really is very little these days. I know they have not matched the ruthlessness of the wingers in recent years, but I have more faith they will now.
Palli
@Tractarian and reflectedsky:
Frankly, with Cheney still alive, this is a silly discussion.
Tractarian
@Tom Q:
Enron and Wall Street executives knew they would get caught, they knew their shenanigans would lead to a public backlash…Sarbanes-Oxley…Dodd-Frank…and culminate in global financial meltdown… and yet they did it anyway?
I’m not buying it. More likely, they had no idea their short-term bonanza would turn into a nightmare.
Point being, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what will eventually happen in a world without a filibuster.
Barry
@Seebach: “Norm Ornstein works for the American enterprise institute, right? But he never seems like a crazy conservative. Every time I see him, he’s very matter of fact. Just a consummate professional or what?”
He’s the one decent man whose presence keeps God from smiting that place like Soddom and Gomorrah.
I’m not kidding.
Barry
@Tractarian: “Did you catch the problem with this logic? It’s right there in his premise: demographic trends will doom the GOP. So why in the world would the GOP want to make it much easier for a bare majority to pass laws, just when they are headed for a long period of being the out-party? Sounds like the GOP’s nightmare scenario to me.”
Seconding that, but the immediate reason would be that the Democratic Senate block will never pull off 100% obstruction
for more than the rare bill. The Blue Dogs are easy to peel off.
The Snarxist Formerly Known As Kryptik
@Brachiator:
This. They’re ALREADY tearing down everything they possibly can right here and now, they’re just doing it state level. My biggest worry is that even with nominal control of Washington, the GOP will still have either the reins to do as they fucking well please at the state level, or enough power left over to simply obstruct everything and ensure their poison pills remain for decades to come until the public goes again into one of its “FUCK THE DEMMY LIBERAL EVILS~!!!” fits.
Mnemosyne
@Tractarian:
I think they thought they would be able to make their money, get out, and leave everyone else holding the bag when it all went to shit.
Tom Q
@Tractarian: I’ll echo Mnemosyne. I think believing those folks on Wall Street were totally naive about the risks they were taking is giving way more benefit of doubt than they deserve. I think they thought they personally could get away with it, and the damage done to everyone else was outside their realm of concern.
And as far as “it doesn’t take a genius to see what would happen without a filibuster” — it equally doesn’t take a genius to see what defaulting on the national debt would do; yet you had a significant portion of the GOP not only willing but EAGER to go for it. These people live in a Fox Bubble, where it’s easy to believe absolute nonsense because facts are never permitted to intrude. And beyond that, a goodly bunch of them believe whatever they do wll have no long-term effect because the rapture’s on its way soon.
Seriously…thinking of these people as rational has done no one any good for quite a while now.
David Koch
This is payback!
We’re gonna get the Kenyan usurper for stealing the nomination from Hillary!!
I couldn’t care less if Keystone pipeline destroys the planet, I’m not going to be around forever, anyways.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
@Tractarian:
Yup. I mean we hate the modern Republican Party with a passion, as well as the Popular Peoples Front of Judea but our real ire is reserved for the firebaggin’ crowd. Nothing worse than a SPLITTUH!
Legalize
Just because the GOPers didn’t kill the filibuster in the past doesn’t mean they won’t do it in the future. In the past, the GOP wasn’t a reanimated corpse; it is now. It’s priorities in the past were getting stuff it wanted. Like most reanimated corpses, it’s sole priority right now is ripping the throats out of the living, and infecting us all with their disease. Remember Zombieland Rule #2 – put 2 in their skulls right now before they have a chance to spread their rot.
Also, too, judges.
David Koch
@comrade scott’s agenda of rage: LEAVE JANE ALOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONE!!!!!!!!
ReflectedSky
@Tractarian: I used to only read the front pager articles. One of the things I like about Balloon Juice is the range of viewpoints — at least, there’s a range of viewpoints on the front page. Is the comments section, by comparison, a clique? Or rather, do some of the commenters WANT it to be a clique — a sealed-off echo chamber where anyone who doesn’t agree with you gets an insulting label in the hopes that they’ll go away?
Insulting people who want to talk to you but don’t agree with you 100% is exactly what the people on the right are doing that you guys make fun of. And it’s not productive. I’m sorry, if you dislike “Firebaggers,” I assume you want Obama to win. I’m not breaking news when I point out that lots of Democrats are disappointed in and suspicious of him. Sticking out your virtual tongues at people who feel that way doesn’t help with that. Of course you can do it if you want. My question is why? Is your own commitment to your position so weak that my pretty civil counter-statement is perceived as as big threat?
Maybe I shouldn’t comment here. I can go back to reading the front page and having my little benign crush on Cole, which my husband tolerates because he knows there’s no damn way I’m getting to West Virginia (and past the animals). But you guys labeling me and telling to be silent in the presence of my betters makes me want to quit work for the day and stalk you on every post. Because you know, it’s a free for all.
By the way, as a registered Democrat who has voted in every election since I reached adulthood, I am your potential ally politically, whether you like it or not. Or are you looking forward with enthusiasm to President Romney’s leadership, while former President Obama goes on his lecture tour?
Tractarian
@Tom Q:
I get what you’re saying. I don’t think the Masters of the Universe were naive; I think they honestly believed the shit wouldn’t hit the fan this hard. (And, by the way, every analyst not named Krugman would have agreed with them.)
On the other hand, I do believe that even the dimmest Republicans (take the default-loving Bachmann for example) are aware that it is impossible to keep the levers of power away from Democrats forever. So they’re not going to trash the only tool the minority has to obstruct. (Especially considering how easy it is for Republicans to peel off Dems, compared to vice versa.)
Keith G
@ReflectedSky:
We will see if that is enough, but I doubt it. Chests need to be thumped and insults need to be hurled for some to feel good in their tribal skin. This is the internet, after all.
Tractarian
@ReflectedSky:
If you want not to be called names you don’t like, you need to either (1) go to a different blog, preferably one whose name is not synonymous with “hot air”, or (2) stop making pretty civil counter-statements like this:
YOU wrote this false, bad-faith, hyperbolic drivel. And now I’M the one welcoming President Romney? That’s rich.
[edited to remove the more incendiary bits]
Keith G
I was going to ask @ReflectedSky: which “corrupt, failed industries and elites” Obama has protected. Specificity is a good thing.
Meanwhile, @Tractarian:, how can you be sure she is acting in bad faith at this point?
Arclite
I have my issues with Obama, but there’s no way I’m staying home on election day and not voting for the guy. That being said, I’m in Hawaii where we’ll vote for Obama in a 5 to 1 ratio, being the state that gave the largest percentage of votes to the man in the whole nation.
Brachiator
@ReflectedSky:
Right now, any sane Democrat, liberal, moderate or progressive wants Obama to win. There ain’t no third party. We do not have a parliamentary system. The election will be either/or. Either Obama wins or a Republican wins. And if a Republican wins, there will be nothing but misery for millions of Americans.
Now, in an ideal world, liberals and progressives would elect more Democrats to the Congress to support, to challenge, and to strengthen Obama’s hand. Instead, we get pearl clutchers who want to whine that Obama is the sole source of their misery.
Disappointment, I can understand, even though I do not agree, at least I don’t agree with most of their reasons (I have some of my own, and have noted them here without fear that I was offending some clique).
Democrats, liberals and progressives who are “suspicious” of Obama are delusional.
The nature of the Net sometimes leads to combative and contentious discussions, but no one should ever feel that they shouldn’t comment. Sometimes they may have to develop a thicker skin. And one of the things that I like about this site is that John Cole and most front pagers with rare exception go out of their way to make sure that people can freely post their thoughts.
And most posters will at least read your posts, even if they then try to rhetorically bombard you. Other places, people just talk past one another and just try to ram their own points home.
Anyway, my half cent worth.
Tractarian
@Keith G:
This gave it away, I think:
Keith G
@Tractarian: When I view that quote
I just assume that she has yet to take a careful and objective look at the data or she is using a different glossary than I do.
While this president has made mistakes and at least one wrong-headed political cya decision, he not only has supported positive legislation, but has got a lot of important stuff through Congress.
Her above assertion is not supported by the facts I am familiar with. Hopefully she will change that.
Cain
If they get rid of the filibuster eventually govt will fall into Democratic hands and we can pretty much do the same thing.
Of course by that time, the whiney republicans will cry about how the Democrats are mean to them and demand they re-institute the filibuster rules and about being fairness back into government. Kumbaya motherfuckers.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Legalize:
Of course not, the future isn’t set and everyone has free will to do what they will. Including republicans killing the filibuster for leg. But the evidence isn’t there that they plan to, or ever have, and therefore not a reason or excuse for democrats to break the rules and kill the filibuster now.
NR
Come on. You guys are talking like the filibuster is just a simple Senate rule that can be changed at any time with a majority vote, and not an all-powerful, magical force that can never be defeated and forces a 60 vote requirement on all legislation. That’s crazy! There is absolutely NO way to defeat the filibuster. The Democrats told us so all throughout 2009 and 2010.
BruceFromOhio
@BGinCHI: This is the first thing I’ve laughed at all day. Thank you.
BruceFromOhio
@Tractarian:
Which pretty much guarantees that is *precisely* what they will try to do.
john
And good riddance to the filibuster!
Are liberals really defending this anti-democratic parliamentary nonsense now?
Some Loser
@john:
It is way too late to make a comment on this, but no, we are not defending this. We are just noting the consequences. Decisions like these become a lot more frightening when they are likely to happen.
Marc
It’s late here, but I actually think that the removal of the filibuster by Republicans is almost certain if they sweep the election.
The reason is simple: there is a strong movement on the Democratic side to remove it as well. Under these conditions – where you think that the tool will be removed when the other party wants to – the first person to do so gets the edge.
In other words, they figure that the Dems might get a big margin in the Senate in 2016 and change the rules, so they might as well get 4 years of doing what they want.
The second reason is that they honestly think that their agenda is popular, and that if they have a chance to change the rules for the True Conservative Path that it’ll trigger a realignment. They could also rig up enough districts to make it very hard to lose control of the House and restrict voting rights enough to make it hard to win.