An Orwellian Moment: NYT Editors Declare 60 Votes a "Majority" of 100
We're told on the front page of today's NYT that "Democrats lost a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate."
We're told inside that Scott Brown's election "deprived Democrats of their 60-vote majority."
Also inside, we're told that "Democrats lost their filibuster-proof 60-vote majority."
Three different pieces, filed from two different bureaus. I deduce that it's become NYT policy to refer to the 60-vote supermajority that's come to be considered, egregiously, the new normal--so normal that David Axelrod referred to it recently as a Senate "tradition"--as a "majority."
That's cra-a-zy. Call 60 votes out of 100 a "supermajority," a "60-vote supermajority," a "filibuster-proof 60-vote supermajority," whatever, but do not distort the meaning of the word "majority" simply because the Republicans have been acting as though 41 votes constituted a majority and Democrats have been rather gentle with them about it.
Just plain stop it.
Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate Roy Edroso
January 22, 2010 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube to mp3
December 17, 2010 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
What youre saying is completely true. I agreee with you
children health
January 12, 2011 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree with all the ideas you have presented in your post. They’re very convincing and will definitely work. Still, the posts are very short for starters. Could you please extend them a bit from next time? Thanks for the post.by healthy families and child health plus
March 26, 2011 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think people understand what is meant. Why do you find it so noteworthy and deserving of a blog?
January 22, 2010 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sloppy semantic habits reveal sloppy mental habits, which in turn inhibit the ability to see weirdness for what it is--viz., the "normality" of the supermajority requirement, surely a profoundly anti-democratic phenomenon.
Conservatives used to be able to see how dangerous it was to (in Daniel Patrick Moynihan's apt phrase of 1993) "define deviance down" with euphemism. But other oxen were being gored then. The letter illustrates the point.
January 22, 2010 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant the letter below.
January 22, 2010 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Todd, There is nothing new here. I understand the Democrats are frustrated by current rules, but these are the rules both sides have always lived under. Now suddenly it is called anti-democratic.
The filibuster has been around for thousands of years. It is intended to keep the majority from steam rolling the minority's ability to have a voice. I hear people claiming the GOP are cheating or that the Democrats have never done this, and so on. The Democrats have been the prime abusers of the filibuster for the last 70 years.
The Democrats used it to shut out Mexican American laborers in the Southwest after the war. They used it to obstruct Republican efforts to pass Civil Rights legislation and the used it during the Bush years to obstruct Judicial nominees. Do you remember the gang of 14?
At the beginning of Eisenhower's second term, he planned a series of Civil Rights acts. The first in 82 years. He had Richard Nixon as his point man go to the Senate on the opening of its session in 1957, propose as President of the Senate that the body can change its rules at the beginning of each session for that session. This was clearly understood to be directed at Robert Byrd and the obstructionist Democrats who would filibuster the Republican's Civil Rights agenda.
The Democrats were able to convince enough Republicans that changing Senate rules on cloture was a two sided sword and would be used against them someday as well. Enough Republicans voted with the Democrats to counter Nixon's proposal, which led to the Democrat filibusters that slowed Civil Rights progress for the next decade.
We do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Republic. These are the rules we have always lived under. There are reasons for these rules. This seems to always happen. The rules that Democrats seem to love when they work their way are suddenly unconstitutional or undemocratic or unamerican as soon as they don't get their way.
Who can forget Hillary Clinton and other Democrats in 2000 claiming that its time to scrap the Electoral college because they thought it was undemocratic. A brief reading of the Federalist papers explains that the electoral college was designed to avoid tyranny of the majority, dominance of regional candidates that could wreak havoc over a majority of other states and a way to complicate plots to corrupt the elections. The claims of Electoral college issues worked in the Democrats favor in 1960, so the pendulum swings both ways.
There is not some cosmic force of evil behind the current rules and claiming there is is kind of an emotional response to what is obviously a devastating setback to the Democrats agenda.
Remember, when GWB won in 2004, the Democrats response to his agenda was, you should be bipartisan and remember that you still represent the other half of Americans who didn't vote for you. They deserve to hear their wishes addressed. The Democrats now seem to think, they have the power, so its 100% Democrat ideas, and zero Republican input.
The Democrats vision of Democracy is very flexible from year to year.
But I find it interesting that when the shoe was on the other foot, and Democrats were in the minority, the Democrats found it perfectly reasonable to claim that the solution to their obstructionism was to accommodate some of the wishes of the minority. They called it bipartisanship. They assumed that accommodating of Democrat ideas was perfectly reasonable and "democratic", even though the GOP were in the majority.
It is a matter of perspective. If you think the GOP has no "reasonable" ideas, then you are kind of stuck. If a GOP majority thinks the Democrats have no reasonable ideas, then they are stuck. When a GOP majority begrudgingly agrees to accommodate a filibustering minority, even though they think the Democrat ideas are nuts, the left considers it "reasonable" and the GOP is at least "coming to their senses" by accepting what are clearly "superior ideas". When the shoe is on the other foot, Democrats think its crazy to accommodate a minority if they don't agree with them.
The difference is the Democrats want zero inclusion of GOP ideas. They are not in an accommodating mood.
Well, they better get in the mood.
This is the way the system has always worked. It is not some cosmic confluence. It has always been like this. The GOP didn't like to take their medicine either. But they did. Now its your turn.
January 23, 2010 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The difference is the Democrats want zero inclusion of GOP ideas. They are not in an accommodating mood."
The Democrats accept something like 126 amendments in the House bill.
If you look at that graph floating around the net, you'll see that the use of the filibuster this year has been WAY above normal.
January 23, 2010 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Remember, when GWB won in 2004, the Democrats response to his agenda was, you should be bipartisan and remember that you still represent the other half of Americans who didn't vote for you."
But he didn't govern in a bipartisan way at all. Dems were completely shut out of legislation for 8 years, except around the edges.
January 23, 2010 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have got to be kidding me!!
He immediately got together with Ted Kennedy of all people and put together a huge spending bill on Education.
He created the Medicare reform act which was described as the biggest addition to the welfare state in a generation.
He appropriated 5 times as much as his predecessor on AIDS.
Bono and Bob Geldof have both been quoted as saying Africa has never had a more generous friend than George Bush.
If you remember the Immigration reform bill was in more trouble from the GOP than from the Dems.
These were all legislation that was bipartisan.
I could go on. How long of a list do you want, TT, or are you just in a contrary mood lately?
January 24, 2010 4:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
TJ: He immediately got together with Ted Kennedy of all people and put together a huge spending bill on Education.
He created the Medicare reform act which was described as the biggest addition to the welfare state in a generation.
He appropriated 5 times as much as his predecessor on AIDS.
Bono and Bob Geldof have both been quoted as saying Africa has never had a more generous friend than George Bush.
If you remember the Immigration reform bill was in more trouble from the GOP than from the Dems.
TT: Neither Medicare nor NCLB were funded. On the latter, in particular, Kennedy felt double-crossed. Immigration reform is a bipartisan issue, but Bush is simply following his corporate masters who need cheap labor.
I will give you AIDS...it was a good move.
January 24, 2010 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, again, the question is whether Bush and the Republicans consulted Democrats and invited them into the process. I think the record will show that, mostly, he did not.
January 24, 2010 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not bipartisan AT ALL?
COMPLETELY shutout?
I gave 5 examples of major legislation that were traditional Leftwing causes and examples of his calling on the opposition FIRST for input. I could name more.
You said "not bipartisan at all" and "completely shutout"
Before you claim that I am taking your words out of context, why don't you back away from the keyboard for a sec and consider not exaggerating to the point that your statements can be so easily destroyed.
You have admitted that I give Obama credit for certain things. You seem to be possessed with a need to use exaggeration to make your points regarding Bush.
If you don't like having your arguments so thoroughly refuted, then stick to the facts.
January 24, 2010 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
i dont think so bro
porno izle
February 12, 2011 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides insurance, home loans are the biggest expenses you can have. While obtaining free insurance quotes can save you a lot of money, the same can be said for researching mortgage related options.
A Heloc (Home Equity Line of Credit) is a sort of loan , usually (but not in all cases) a Second Mortgage, which offers a flexible facility to the mortgage loan holder by allowing them access to the accumulated equity they have in the house in the form of cold hard cash. A Home Equity Line of Credit operates similarly to a bank overdraft – you can withdraw from it (up to a pre arranged limit) simply and you are only charged interest on the amount of money you’ve drawn down if you don't make use of it you arent charged a cent. This is a great way to withdraw the accumulated equity you have in your dwelling and use it for what you need at the moment. As you only pay interest on the total outstanding, it means you can rapidly pay back anything you use if you have the means to do so. The facility is not intended as a long term solution however and at an arranged time the HELOC needs to be settled out. Typically Heloc Rates are bigger than normal mortgage loan but not massively so.
April 4, 2011 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Todd, now you are just being a crybaby.
The left has always misused the word majority. During the Iraq war, they misrepresented polls that constituted "pluralities" as a majority. They claimed a majority of Americans voted for Al Gore, when in fact it was a plurality. When 50-50 votes were decided by Vice President Al Gore it was called a majority and when Dick Cheney decided them, it was dirty trick. It happens all the time.
You are just wallowing in petulance by playing semantics, rather than admit that the GOP are winning by playing by the rules.
When the NYT or anyone else says, "Democrats lost their filibuster-proof 60-vote majority", how is this not true?
The Democrats have a majority of the seats in the Senate. They would if it was 51, 56, 60 or 61. The noun majority is factual. The adjective "filibuster-proof", assuming that the "Democrats" can in unison vote together, is factual if they have 60, but not 59. It would also be factual if they have 61. Where they once had 60 and now have "lost" that vote to a Republican, the statement is true and factual.
"Democrats lost their filibuster-proof 60-vote majority"
Why do you waste space here with your childish whining about a statement that is factual, merely because you wish it were not so.
At least you didn't fall back on your old standby "race baiting" as a cheap substitute to addressing the issues.
You lost. Own it. Move on.
Sheesh!
January 22, 2010 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Touchy, touchy.
January 22, 2010 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the Republicans who have been acting as if 41 votes were a majority, it's the Democrats.
January 22, 2010 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
After some thought, I agree with you Todd.
Unless something is X, it doesn't make sense to call it Y, and then use a modifier to make mean X.
Majority means more than half.
If there's significance in the number 60, it's because it's a supermajority, not a garden variety majority.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have nouns that cover a lot of ground and other nouns that cover very specific territory within that larger area. Sloppy.
January 22, 2010 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sloppy at best, perniciously intentional at worst.
How many contentious, obsessed 'baggers went forth, armed with that headline, and pronounced the same falsehood to everyone who had to listen, just "because it said so in the NYTimes!"
January 23, 2010 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see much worse examples of similar type on TPMDC every single day, and more blatant. Here's just one example. But I don't think they are going to stop it, just the opposite, it's pretty clear seeing it happen over time, that it's their mission to do it as much and as far as they can get away with.
Sometimes I think it the result of thinking about attracting traffic, which also may be the case with the New York Times at times. But other times, with TPM, I think it is for an agenda, and I never think that that is the case with the Times.
January 22, 2010 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing that strikes me is no one in the media is making a big deal about how the R's have absolutely abused the filibuster. I am not exactly sure of the numbers but it strikes me as most everything Obama has needed to pass it is said needed 60 votes. So the filibuster, or the threat of it, which are one in the same, is being invoked on just about everything. This is insanity. I don't think something like this has happened in the history of the republic, it is unprecedented. But instead we get to hear from our media, the media that is supposed to help watch our government, how 60 represents the the first number for a numeric majority of 100? Really? Not in this universe, that I know of.
January 23, 2010 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The thing that strikes ME is that the DEMOCRATS aren't making a big deal about the abuse of senate rules. It's almost as if they like being impotent...
January 23, 2010 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is a very good point Obey. Why aren't the D's really pushing back hard on it? It almost seems like they are ok with it. Maybe as an excuse to not pass legislation that they, and their corporate benefactors(?), don't want passed?
January 23, 2010 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel had a good segment on it last night.
BTW, I apologize for all the nasty things I said about you and laid at your feet a few threads ago.
I was hot and should not have been writing. You didn't deserve what I said to you.
January 23, 2010 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not a problem. A lot of stuff is said in the heat of battle Tintin. Thanks for apology, I do appreciate it, but even without it we were cool as far as I am concerned. Cheers!!!
January 23, 2010 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The media is going to be giddy over the prospect of all that easy money flowing in from this New World Order version of democracy. No doubt they will ignore the totalitarian implications and refuse to report abut it, as they rak in that campaign ad money.
The pharmies have been paying them off with Viagra ads, now any corporation can do the same in return for their complicity in the process of deceiving the public at large.
January 23, 2010 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It takes 51 votes to change ANY Senate rule.That includes the
filibuster rule. It takes a simple majority vote of 51 of the 59
putative "democrats" now in the Senate to render this entire
issue moot. So why are all you people concerned about 60
votes, when the correct answer is clear.
The Republicans had no trouble threatening to repeal the
filibuster rule when the then minority democrats failed to
fall in line behind Bush II's judicial nominations. The republicans
never had a 60 vote Senate majority during W's term.
Why does everyone here seem unaware of the 51 vote rule
for changes in the Senate's own rules?
January 29, 2010 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
II's judicial nominations. The republicans
never had a 60 vote Senate majority during W's term.
Why does everyone here seem unaware of the 51 vote rul for changes in the Senate's own rules.
fire protection online
February 11, 2011 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes i will do it
porno izle
February 12, 2011 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
never had a 60 vote Senate majority during W's term.
Why does everyone here seem unaware of the 51 vote rul for changes in the Senate's own rules.
Christopher
February 16, 2011 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think people understand what is meant. Why do you find it so noteworthy and deserving of a blog?
Clean
February 19, 2011 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks There is nothing new here. I understand the Democrats are frustrated by current rules, but these are the rules both sides have always lived under. Now suddenly it is called anti-democratic. informatics
February 19, 2011 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks filibuster-proof 60-vote supermajority," whatever, but do not distort the meaning of the word "majority" simply because the Republicans have been acting as though 41 votes constituted a majority and Democrats have been rather gentle with them about it. vinyl tape
March 2, 2011 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting numbers here.An interesting discussion is worth comment. I think that you should write more on this topic, it might not be a taboo subject but generally people are not enough to speak on such topics. scabies causes
March 9, 2011 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
An interesting discussion is worth comment. I think that you should write more on this topic, it might not be a taboo subject but generally people are not enough to speak on such topics.
buy car insurance
March 18, 2011 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
whatever, but do not distort the meaning of the word "majority" simply because the Republicans have been acting as though 41 votes constituted a majority and Democrats have been rather gentle with them kindle accessories
March 19, 2011 5:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks The media is going to be giddy over the prospect of all that easy money flowing in from this New World Order version of democracy. No doubt they will ignore the totalitarian implications and refuse to report abut it leanspa acai berry
March 22, 2011 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks We live in a Republic. These are the rules we have always lived under. There are reasons for these rules. This seems to always happen. The rules that Democrats seem to love when they work their way are suddenly unconstitutional or undemocratic or unamerican vitamix reviews
March 24, 2011 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for publishing this article in the site as it is known to that entire people in the democratic countries are frustrated by the rules and regulation that are implemented.
Vernon
March 30, 2011 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks the numbers but it strikes me as most everything Obama has needed to pass it is said needed 60 votes. So the filibuster, or the threat of it, which are one in the same, is being invoked on just about everything. This is insanity. I don't think something like this has happened in the history of the republic, it is unprecedented Carpet Cleaning
March 30, 2011 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will forward this article to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Thanks for sharing!
Dissertation Essay
March 30, 2011 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm the same way, I do my best to remain neutral. It's hard, if you communicate with the person the other person dislikes, then you fall out of favor with them! I simple can't dislike a person, just because someone else does, I just can't.
Term Paper Thesis
March 30, 2011 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will forward this article to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Thanks for sharing!
Research Paper
March 30, 2011 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks people claiming the GOP are cheating or that the Democrats have never done this, and so on. The Democrats have been the prime abusers of the filibuster for the last 70 years. sign holders
April 2, 2011 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You helped me a lot indeed and reading this your article I have found many new and useful information about this subject. the diet solution program
April 3, 2011 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this great information. I will look forward to read more here.
Golf Simulator
April 5, 2011 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is an interesting article written by Orwellian and gained maximum votes from the readers as they found it fascinating and interesting. Thanks to the website in providing such good article of the famous writer.Florence
April 5, 2011 4:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the information. This is a wonderful post!!
Custom Dissertation Online
Custom Essay Online
April 16, 2011 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very nice Site number one topic Thanks you..
Custom Research Paper Online
April 16, 2011 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Worth sharing this information. Good Work
Custom Dissertation
Custom Essay
April 16, 2011 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great informative post thanks for sharing.....
Custom Research Paper
April 16, 2011 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am a lover of reading news online Thanks for writing a complete .
Houston web developer
April 19, 2011 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Germany and the Netherlands have aggressively pushed "work sharing" policies that have kept unemployment from rising in the downturn. Thanks to work sharing, the unemployment rate in the Netherlands is less than 4.0 percent even though they have had
leather motorcycle vest
April 22, 2011 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Netherlands have aggressively pushed "work sharing" policies that have kept unemployment from rising in the downturn. Thanks to work sharing, the unemployment rate in the Netherlands is less than 4.0
masonic cuff links
April 23, 2011 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The filibuster is intended to keep the majority from steam rolling the minority's ability to have a voice.
Payday Loans | Fast cash
April 25, 2011 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really liked the post and great tips..even I also think that hard work is the most important aspect of getting success keep it up :)
Plays Football
April 27, 2011 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
some times I think there a game played in the senate between Rep and Dem, and who loose??? I think we are the big stupid losers.
OBDII scanner
May 4, 2011 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
60 votes it's a great mayority. I always go with Democrats! Continue with this kind of work, it's very usefull for us.
Volvo
May 4, 2011 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for making such a cool post which is really very well written will be referring a lot of friends about this. Keep bogging. mothers day flowers Canada| mothers day flowers delivery Los Angeles
May 7, 2011 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink