Mar
16
2014

Harry Reid offers the NRA a scalp on controversial Surgeon General nomination.

Tell me again about how smart it was for Harry Reid to kill the filibuster over nominations. Because I’m pretty sure that it’s going to end up giving the NRA a public win:

A number of Senate Democrats have indicated that they might oppose President Barack Obama’s choice of Vivek Murthy for the post of U.S. Surgeon General, according to Senate aides, putting the nomination at risk over the issue of gun control.

Dr. Murthy’s nomination is opposed by the National Rifle Association, the country’s largest gun lobby, because he has expressed support for gun control, calling it a public-health issue.

This was perhaps a puckish statement from the WSJ on the potential Democratic defections, which could reach perhaps as much as ten: “White House officials said they were “recalibrating” their strategy.” Not quite a pun, but close enough for government work. The problem for the Democrats was that, in the old days, they could just let the GOP filibuster the nomination, the NRA would or would not score the cloture vote, and the Democrats would pound the table and shout about the GOP. Now… well, the GOP will still vote against the nomination, the NRA will score the vote, and the Democrats will have to convince vulnerable Red State Democrats to risk dying on that hill.

How all of this is a worse way of doing things from a Republican point of view is, of course, the question.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Assuming, of course, that the Murthy nomination is withdrawn or defeated, I suggest that Democrats who may be understandably upset at this development reserve their ire for the man responsible for it: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  He’s a Democrat, from Nevada: and not to be a gossip, or anything – well, the man has been possibly a little erratic in his behavior lately.

PPS: If you’re wondering why this never used to happen to Barack Obama, well… he never used to have a 43% approval rating on the RCP Poll of Polls, either. The President should really go get some wins on the board, hey?

3 Comments

  • garfieldjl says:

    In any case, I think the elimination of the fillabuster when it comes to nominations was a bad thing, it was a major safeguard.

    I’m just glad Harry Reid seriously miscalculated and got rid of the fillabuster when it comes to nominations during an election year where a lot of people are already angry with Democrats.

    My concern is that Obama will appoint Vivek Murthy as a recess appointment.

  • Jeff Weimer says:

    To be honest, I thought the “nuclear option” would be a disaster. Thank God for an opposition that doesn’t know when to say when.
    .
    I can see why McConnell wants to undo it if the GOP takes the Senate next year.

    • garfieldjl says:

      On the contrary, this demonstrates why the fillabuster is necessary. There needs to be a set of proverbial “emergency brakes,” in the Senate. I know it can make the Senate unwieldy, but if Reid hadn’t managed to get Obamacare rammed through with procedurial shannigans, it would have been blocked by 1 vote.

      The fillabuster is designed to make sure that the majority party doesn’t infringe on the rights of the minority. Harry Reid did away with part of the fillabuster because he knew they were likely to lose the Senate in 2014’s election and wanted to make sure that Obama’s far-left wackos got approved before that happened.

      Unfortunately, for Reid and the Democrats, it only added to the anger that people already felt towards the Democrats and Obama’s picks were too radical even for Democrats.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com