Pulling Teeth
I'm glad to see that Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) has launched a site with a petition calling on Harry Reid to lower the cloture number required to stop a filibuster from 60 to 55. Moderates ought to approve: It's a moderate move.
I don't think Harry Reid can pull this off by himself, but it's good to know that there's some buzz on the progressive side in the Senate to change the Senate rules so that majorities can legislate. That would seem a small accomplishment. It's going to be a major one. It will take years of work.
Let's get to work.
White House, this means you.
P. S. The estimable Ed Kilgore clinches the point about how much is at stake:
Since the Senate already has a built-in red-state bias, a supermajority requirement would basically represent a death sentence for progressive initiatives in the near future.
Advertisement
So when Democrats can't win, they change the rules - also known as cheating. Don't they understand that they will not always be in the majority? And then the Republicans will do the same thing to them?
November 23, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dems would never let this happen, the 60 vote threshold is what is giving them cover. Very few, if any Democratic senators are progressive at all. They will talk a good game, but it is just for show. They are in the Senate for the prestige, the power, and the riches.
Obama is the prime example of this - talks like a progressive in his books and campaigns, and then governs as a fiscal conservative, torturer, domestic snooper, and war monger.
It is all just a game, and progressives lose every time because people fall for their act every few even years.
November 24, 2009 4:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just in time for a Republican senate. Is that really so smart?
November 24, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is absurd. The Democrats pissed and moaned for 8 years that the Bush administration (and its Republican counterparts in Congress) were changing and manipulating rules to get what they want; and now that the Democrats are in power with an undivided government, Todd suggests Harry Reid should drastically change the rules to benefit his party.
If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.
Abdul Abdulbul Amir is right. By the time this rule change would take effect, the Republicans will be back in control of the Senate.
November 24, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do it.
Sure that means the Republicans will rule the country when they have a majority, that's as it should be.And until then,that's what we should do.
We've taken a grossly undemocratic system which gives equal representation -on six year terms-to Wyoming and Califonia,and compounded it with the requirement for an almost impossible to achieve majority. Enough!
Give the voters a chance.
November 25, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Put me down with Flavius on this one. I think he's right.
November 27, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is zero chance that the senate in the foreseeable future will enact a lower majority, and doing so will only increase the likelihood that more seats will go Repub. There are at least some procedural ways around it on many measures, and they might be broadened or used more broadly, but of course as some have pointed out, that is a two-edged sword.
Statehood for New Columbia, on the other hand, is way overdue. True, by adding only two seats, it really doesn't make things much easier, but hopefully (especially when it comes to rogue centrist Democrats), it could provide a little more wiggle room. Also, the nonsense about senators like Collins and Snowe being "moderate" needs to be addressed. Democrats should NOW be pouring money and building a massive grassroots organization in Maine to hopefully capture those two seats. These four seats will at least stave off a less progressive senate, a real danger in the years ahead.
Frankly, there is a WHOLE lot that really vigorous progressives in both Congress and the White House could be doing given the cards as they lie -- and they aren't doing it. For example, where are the nationally televised Congressional hearings giving as much media exposure to Jim Hansen (and now Pachauri's) observations about the greenhouse effect as the circus over gays in the military got in 93?
It seems that the RW plays with all they've got (busting the budget w/tax relief for the rich in the first months of 01, then turning 9/11 -- which would have been blamed on the Democrats had THEY been in office at the time -- into a carte blanche); progressives in power seem to only fight half-heartedly, w/no measures in place (eg w/Lieberman) used to insure anything, the way the RW are permitted to
It's like the notion of "and they're mean for love" -- those serving hate are allowed to be mean and effective, authentic progressives are verboten in practice from really TRYING to be effective. At all levels of politics THIS is where we need to start
November 25, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Senate's rules are pretty damn arcane. They do change. And, the rules on changing the rules are not as simple and clear as similar rules in Robert's are. Also, procedures that change the efficacy of that more unfettered debate come and go as well. Don't forget, this is politics at the highest level. There has always been wiggle room, and our constitution offers little in the way of limits. Here's a link to a good Harvard Law Review article on this: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf
November 26, 2009 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was very pleased to find this site.I wanted to thank you for this great read!! Hulu Downloader | iPad Converter T
August 17, 2010 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was very pleased to find this site.I wanted to thank you for this great read!! Hulu Downloader | iPad Converter
August 17, 2010 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
m2ts files converter from m2ts converter
August 17, 2010 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink