#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