Be Careful What You Wish For, Part 328
Michael Cohen, over at Politico, has once more dredged up the same old, tired cloth rending which we always seem to get from the oppressed majority. (Yes, you read that correctly… the oppressed majority.) Tired of the difficulties encountered in doing business with the minority party, Michael bravely calls for an end to the “GOP’s filibuster folly.” How dare a party with less than sixty seats in the Senate employ legislative tactics and trickery to slow down the Obamapalooza train? Clearly we must put a stop to this.
Ah, yes, Michael. You take me back fondly to the bad old days of the first term of George W. Bush. The GOP was riding roughshod over the Democrats like a far more boring version of Girls Gone Wild and the president was rubber stamping each and every thing they tossed on his desk with nary a veto in sight. (Is any of this sounding familiar yet?) But still, they were not satisfied. Whether it was pet legislation or the appointment of judges, those pesky Democrats kept gumming up the works and stopping the realization of the dreams of all good conservatives. The solution? Some started calling for exactly the same thing, even naming it the “nuclear option” for certain procedures.
And at that time, I cautioned them to be careful what they wished for. Voters are a fickle lot, and any party leaders who really think they’ve locked up the chambers for good need to have their brownies checked for mind altering plant content. The shoe always winds up on the other foot sooner or later, and whatever weapons you craft for yourself will wind up in the hands of your enemy.
Now that the worm has turned, Democrats of all stripes have been mumbling about reconciliation or crushing of filibusters to get their various pet projects into green light status. Can you do it? Sure you can. Should you?
Take a good look at the polls. Your congressional majority is currently about as popular as a skunk in a church pew and anti-incumbent sentiments are at near record highs. If you don’t find a way to turn things around, not only will you not be part of a “permanent Democratic majority” but you’ll go into the trivia books as one of the shortest lived majorities on record. And if the unemployment rate doesn’t start heading south in a serious fashion in the next 24 months, President Obama may want to start looking into turning the utilities back on in his Chicago digs.
Now ask yourselves this… do you really want a potential new Republican majority to do anything they want in the Senate with only fifty votes and a compliant vice president? I didn’t think so.
Be careful…
opinions powered by SendLove.to
17 Responses to “Be Careful What You Wish For, Part 328”
The confusion (imho) comes from the continually repeated mantra, “We have a mandate!”
Hogwash. Ain't no such thing…. and the first party to catch on to this truth will go far. (I'm not, however, holding my breath.)
I see it a different way. Dems should ram through as much of their agenda as possible, by all legal means necessary. Congressional polls aren't going to get any better. It isn't like stopping any of their plans will change voter opinion. What they need to do is get something done…a lot done. They need to prove that they are capable of governing. Half of the people may not like what they pass, but the other half will and will vote to keep what they have.
“Dems should ram through as much of their agenda as possible, by all legal means necessary.”
That's what they were doing earlier this year, until they fumbled and failed at health care “reform” due to their overreach and because they not only were repelling more and more of the public by doing this, but also starting to elevate concerns and dissension even among or within Democrats (as we currently and will likely still see among Democrats with the health care “reform” effort). If they resume ramming much bad legislation and insisting on bad policy, they will again meet concern and opposition and rejection from the public, and likely among themselves again sometime — and they will be mis-governing us as well as themselves.
“they fumbled and failed at health care “reform” due to their overreach”
I would say mismanaged, not overreached. Pelosi and Reid are functioning retards. Obama, in his inexperience, looked at those two for leadership in legislative branch. He won't make that mistake again.
This is one of the most pitifully misguided blog posts I've read in a while. Yes, our “congressional majority is currently about as popular as a skunk in a church pew and anti-incumbent sentiments are at near record highs.” That's because they are failing to accomplish anything. Why is that? Because the filibuster makes it impossible to accomplish anything.
Doing away with the filibuster (or reforming it) entails risks. Obviously. But that's only because it will enable the majority to do exactly what they are elected to do: govern. Let them — and let them be held accountable for what they have accomplished, not for what they have failed to accomplish or what they have prevented from being accomplished.
I disagree. The filibuster is the only thing that keeps this country from making extreme swings from the left to right. If we are going to stick with a two party system, we need the filibuster. It is about the only thing forcing our politicians to work with each other.
It forces our politicians to work together? Since when? No, the filibuster makes it possible for a minority to prevent governing by a majority. And that is exactly how it is used today. It is a form of obstructionism, not a force for bipartisanship.
You know what I think would force the parties to look for ways to work together instead of looking for ways to obstruct each other? The realization that government is once again going to govern. If you can't block that governing, then you better look for ways to influence it.
By the way, there is no possibility for bipartisanship in this environment, and that actually has nothing at all to do with the filibuster but with the character of the modern GOP. I'm sorry, but I think your consternation here is naive.
Jazz, the only difference I see now from when the Republicans were doing it is there is plenty of fighting/disagreements within the Democratic side, during the bush years it was lock-step voting. Congress approval rating have never been that high.
All said, I do find it ironic (because we both knew it'd happen) that the call to remove the filibuster is now on the other shoe.
I don't believe you understand what happens behind closed doors. The filibuster number is an important part of any Senate negotiation.
With all due respect “getting something done”, no matter the consequences, is not governing.
In fact, President Obama's wrestling with Afghanistan, although seen by some as indecision, is much more akin to good governance than anything that Congress has done.
Congress's 13% approval rating is well-earned, because the entire system is corrupt. The two-party monster must be dismantled before that number goes up any time soon.
Most of us understand your frustration with the Republican party, but calling shannonlee naive is showing your lack of age. Nothing ever stays the same for long: Republicans finally get the majority again. I'm not saying when, or that it's what I want, just that history says it will happen in a decade or two, maybe sooner. When it does, you'll be cuddling that filibuster like a teddy bear.
DLS and co.:
There is a group that opposes health care reform no matter which parties POTUS puts it forward:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1A1-D995ALC00.html
Bull Moose
Eisenhower's 'reinsurance' proposal
Nixon
http://www.google.com/search?q=us+health+reform…
Even Republicans couldn't get past special interest groups…
“I would say mismanaged, not overreached. Pelosi and Reid are functioning retards. Obama, in his inexperience”
Valid points, all. I would still argue for overreaching given the scope of intervention and the nature of not only the “stimulus” measures but other things being sought (the climate- and energy-related legislation being the best pre-health-care example of overreach and repelling the public).
“That's because they are failing to accomplish anything. Why is that?”
Failing to accomplish _what_? That is the key. (It is also the key to why they are failing!)
They have not only aroused widespread concern and rejection among the public, but fractured themselves (the Dems), not only for seeking what to some of them is controversial, but for giving many of those Dems concerns about their re-election prospects next year.
The last thing all but the far left wants is more of what they were increasingly “accomplishing” this year.
Rudi — hopefully you were not one of the more childish, angry lefties who have been upset that I have pushed back in recent months against the worst excesses (gee, how that hurts, especially when it's ugly truth doing the hurting!), and have childishly refused to read what I've posted –
– including links to Horsey cartoons like the following I have posted a link to more than once.
http://www.seattlepi.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?…
Cheers.
“In fact, President Obama's wrestling with Afghanistan, although seen by some as indecision, is much more akin to good governance than anything that Congress has done.”
I agree, which is why I've said I'm still in the ever-diminishing camp of those who aren't critical of the Great Ditherer (Nerobama).
Did CodePink have Olberman stoking the fire at there childish, angry rants like the teabaggers, Beck and FoxNoise…
http://www.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/3246…