Tag: filibuster

Barack Obama’s basic filibuster mistake.

And it’s a mistake that has little if anything to do with the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director (although having House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell somewhat surprisingly announce that he was opposing cloture on the eventual vote is not going to help Barack Obama any).  It’s also a mistake that has less than you think to do with the question of drone strikes on American citizens themselves, although the administration’s inexplicable unwillingness to simply lie if that’s what it would have taken to shut Senator Rand Paul up is almost… startling. I know that this sounds cynical – but then, I suspect that the real reason that Barack Obama didn’t concede the point is that he was and is fundamentally unwilling to give any Republican a non-reciprocated win at this point.  Paul wanted the point conceded that badly? – Then NO!  Rand Paul doesn’t get it conceded.

So there. Continue reading Barack Obama’s basic filibuster mistake.

Report: Chuck Hagel not at 60 to confirm.

Just at rumor level at this point:

…and do not get your hopes up. But this is apparently turning into a somewhat higher expenditure of political capital than Barack Obama originally envisioned. Such a shame.

Harry Reid… does not *cave* on the filibuster. Rather, he *disengages*.

Call it a “fighting retreat.” Or a disinclination to fight in a burning house.

So, the big news today is that Harry Reid apparently voluntarily spit out some of his fangs on the filibuster.  They’re modifying the rules to give the minority party a bit more input in the process:

…the deal Reid struck with McConnell doesn’t end the filibuster against the motion to proceed. Rather, it creates two new pathways for moving to a new bill. In one, the majority leader can, with the agreement of the minority leader and seven senators from each party, sidestep the filibuster when moving to a new bill. In the other, the majority leader can short-circuit the filibuster against moving to a new bill so long as he allows the minority party to offer two germane amendment that also can’t be filibustered. Note that in all cases, the minority can still filibuster the bill itself.

Apparently, some of the anti-filibuster people are livid, given that Reid’s given up a bit, not least of which is (in at least some cases) his time-honored trick of filling up the amendment tree (ie, not allowing Republican Senators the option to offer amendments to bills).  And, sure, they’re marketing this as a win – but, realistically?  The Democrats aren’t actually able to pass legislation right now that’s unacceptable to the House, so why not run things the way that they like in the Senate anyway? Continue reading Harry Reid… does not *cave* on the filibuster. Rather, he *disengages*.

Heritage’s helpful poison pill suggestions if Harry Reid kills the filibuster.

Got sent the link to this via email, and I gotta say: some of them are quite fun.  I especially like this one:

  • A new two-thirds point of order against any net tax increase on the American people as scored by the Congressional Budget Office. This would be subject to a simple majority vote and is part of the Senate version of the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution supported by all members of the current Republican caucus.

…although the anti-gun-grabbing one would be almost as good.  Watching the progressive movement discover that they’ve given the rest of America the opportunity to shut them up once and for all about the Second Amendment simply won’t stop being funny. Continue reading Heritage’s helpful poison pill suggestions if Harry Reid kills the filibuster.

It’s… weird. I’m kind of half-bored with talking about the election for right now.

At least in a post; there’s really only so many ways that you can say Well, that sucked.  But there’s really nothing much else happening today.  i mean, we got Harry Reid feeling his oats and promising to change the filibuster – well, more accurately, threatening to change the filibuster. Whether the trigger gets pulled on that is an interesting question, but not one that will be answered today.

I guess that we’ll have to wait for history to turn itself back on again.  Shouldn’t be long…

Turns out I was wrong on filibuster ‘reform’…

…when I said that the only result would be a symbolic gesture towards ‘reform’ with no real changes.  It turns out that progressives didn’t even get that: their precious attempt to deny the Great Shellacking was quietly choked to death in a narrow, dusty room* Tuesday afternoon… and nothing was put in its place.  Tim Noah of Slate is kind of upset about it all –  which is kind of odd, considering that there was never a reasonable chance after November that the Democratic leadership would have made it easier to pass an Obamacare repeal bill.

Yes, that would have been the immediate result of this scheme.  Let me spell it out for those folks on the Other Side who are having difficulty following along (which apparently include some of their Senators).  When you control both Houses of Congress, but the opposition party has enough votes in the Senate to win cloture fights, you want filibuster ‘reform’ to make it easier to pass your legislation.  When you only control the Senate, the Senate opposition party wants filibuster ‘reform’ to make it easier to pass their legislation – particularly when it looks likely that the opposition party will be the majority party after the next election.

This is not particularly difficult to understand.  I’d say that I’m sorry that progressive politicians are too steeped in twinned warm delusions (first delusion, that progressives are popular; second delusion, that the November elections can be negated by an act of Will) to really comprehend this… except that I try not to lie to people.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*Yeah, that’s a G.K. Chesterton reference.  Because that’s how I roll.

Filibuster ‘reform’ near?

Scare quotes, because it’s DC Kabuki Time!  For those who are not ‘blessed’ enough to live within the Beltway – or downwind of it – this is that special time in the legislative calendar where federal politicians preserve the status quo by changing nothing at all and putting a big, red bow on the result.  In this particular case, the scenario is as follows: for some strange reason, certain progressives want to make it easier for Republicans to repeal Obamacare by making the threshold for a cloture vote less than the current 60.  Saner Democrats – which is to say, about a third to a half of the Senate Democratic caucus – don’t want this to happen, mostly because they can count, and they’re well aware of the minor detail that 2012 is shaping up nicely as a Senatorial bloodbath for their party.  So, it’s time for a compromise!

This is what they came up with:

Under the emerging deal, senators would still be able to put a “hold” on nominations and legislation — and therefore prevent quick votes on them — but instead of remaining anonymous for several days as current rules allow, the name of a senator who employs a hold would be made public right away. Supporters of this reform believe that senators will be less likely to drag out a dispute if they need to defend it publicly.

When asked about this, Senator Tom Coburn – who is easily the Senator most likely to call for a hold, and who takes an innocent, care-free glee in maintaining that status – responded by showing Senate progressives the Hawaiian good-luck symbol, and then going off to deliver another baby, in flagrant violation of Senate work ethics laws*.

So I think that you can safely assume that this is not actually going to be, well, relevant.  I won’t even go into the other two supposed provisions – reducing the number of nominees requiring confirmation, and banning reading the bills aloud – mostly because there’s no real confirmation that either ‘reform’ will be even adopted.  Even if they are, the odds that anything would have changed was… low.  Which could be seen as a pity: Democratic Senators worried about their reelection prospects stampede nicely.

Ach, well.

Moe Lane (crosspost) Continue reading Filibuster ‘reform’ near?

#rsrh Revisiting the filibuster.

Over at RedState, Erick Erickson’s written a post calling for people to flood the zone in opposition to changing the filibuster rules.  I share that sentiment, and approve of it: and I agree with hogan (also at RedState) that the filibuster situation as currently designed has inherent merit.  However, I am also prepared to take advantage of the new rules, should the fools in the Democratic Senate caucus actually implement them.

I spelled it out here: to summarize, if the filibuster is eliminated then the Republican Senate abruptly goes from needing thirteen Democrats in order to pass the House’s legislation to only needing four.  Thirteen is hard – doable, if you’re willing to give things up to get it – but hard.  Four?  Four is easy.  We’ve got seven Democrats seriously worried about keeping their jobs after 2012, which even gives the GOP a buffer for its Northeastern contingent.  Senators Udall and Harkin apparently either can’t count, or they don’t quite realize that it’s no longer 2009.

Really.  It’s no longer 2009.  In 2009 the GOP had to play defense in the Senate, because we had a nineteen-to-twenty vote gap that had to be surmounted in order to put any of our policy positions on the board.  Which we couldn’t do.  And now the Democrats want to make it easier for the GOP to make the twenty-three Democratic Senators up for reelection next year squirm in their seats over difficult votes?  Is this a trick question?

Moe Lane

Democrats, filibusters, and briar patches.

[monotone] Please. Don’t. Stop. [/monotone]

Let’s set the (somewhat stylized) scenario, here:

The Senate on January 5, 2011 – as per the apparent wishes of Senators Tom Udall of New Mexico and Tom Harkin of Iowa, neither of whom are up for reelection in 2012 – votes to change the rules so that a simple majority may short-circuit the filibuster. Cheers and applause from the progressives; silence from the Republicans. The cheering dies down as progressives realize that the Republican silence is not from stoicism; it is more anticipatory. What do they anticipate? Why, a knock on the door! It is a courier from the House of Representatives, with the freshly-printed text of HR 1 (“Repeal of Obamacare”), ready for the Senate’s perusal.

All forty-seven Republicans sign off on that bill. Immediately. So does Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who campaigned on Obamacare’s repeal.

Then eyes turn to:

  • Kent Conrad of North Dakota. Blue Senator, Red State. Up for re-election in 2012.
  • Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Blue Senator, Red State. Up for re-election in 2012.
  • Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Blue Senator, Red State. Up for re-election in 2012.
  • Bill Nelson of Florida. Blue Senator, Red State. Up for re-election in 2012.
  • Jon Tester of Montana. Blue Senator, Red State. Up for re-election in 2012.
  • Jim Webb of Virginia. Blue Senator, Red State. Up for re-election in 2012.

What do you think the odds are that the GOP can get three of those Senators to panic? You don’t know? – Funny; neither does the Obama administration, which is why they’d be insane to sign off on making it easier for Republican Senators to pass legislation, not harder. Continue reading Democrats, filibusters, and briar patches.