Showing posts with label filibuster reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label filibuster reform. Show all posts

Monday, November 29, 2021

Monday Reading


As always, please go to the links for the full articles/ op eds.

E.J. Dionne, Jr., goes once more into the breach:  Reform the filibuster and pass voting rights!

There are two big reasons why senators should vote to reform the filibuster, no matter their past views. The first is institutional: What started out as an unusual practice to extend debate has become a routine method for blocking the will of the majority. To put it starkly: Abuse of the filibuster is wrecking the Senate. [snip]

But the core reason the filibuster must be reformed is the moral imperative of passing bills to defend democracy. It confronts multiple challenges: to the right to vote; the right to have votes counted without political interference; and the right of voters to select their representatives — and not have politicians do it by drawing wildly partisan district boundaries.

Should Democrats, including President Biden, allow these things to happen by claiming that the filibuster renders them powerless, they will be guilty of a more profound hypocrisy.

If it fails to act, the party that won power in 2020 as the bulwark of democracy and civil rights will be saying that these commitments matter less than fealty to an outdated, dysfunctional practice that has been altered repeatedly in pursuit of far less noble goals.

To what extent is membership in the Cult of the Malignant Loser reinforced by conservative media?  Duh, a lot:

A large 53% of Republican voters who get their news from the conservative media say supporting Trump is very important to being a Republican. It's just 21% among those who get their media from other television or digital sources.
 
Another way to gauge this is by examining those who argue that backing Trump is not at all important to their Republican identity. It can be argued that these are some of the most ardent anti-Trump Republicans.
Just 8% of Republican voters who prefer conservative media think it's not important at all to support Trump. Among those who prefer to get their news from other sources, it's 35%.
 
The anti-Trump resistance within the GOP is low no matter where you go, but it's far lower among those who like conservative media.
 
Looking ahead to the 2024 presidential primary, any Republican looking to beat Trump (assuming he runs) will likely need to dominate among those who don't prefer conservative media. It probably won't be enough to win. This lane is likely a minority of Republicans (20% to 40% under the most generous definition). Without it, though, any challenge to Trump will have a very hard time succeeding. 
 
The new COVID variant "Omicron" has people all over the world rightly concerned.  The Washington Post looks at these questions and what we know at this point:

Finally, a trip over to Infidel 753's link round-up is highly recommended for inquiring minds (all of you, of course).  He's got another award- winning collection of links to posts from around the Internet that are bound to engage you.

Thursday, April 8, 2021

The Filibuster And Bipartisanship: A Prebuttal To Manchin

 

Weathervane conservaDem Sen. Joe Manchin (?- WV) is at it again with an op/ed in today's Washington Post (which we won't link to).  Basically he states that he won't support an end or changes to the Jim Crow filibuster rule in the Senate because he wants "bipartisanship."  Having obviously slept through the Obama Administration, Manchin wants us to believe that there are Republicans who are willing to cross the aisle and work with Democrats on major legislation like voting rights and infrastructure (or at least 10 of them, to allow cloture).

A veteran of filibuster wars and one of our heroes, former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), published what amounts to a prebuttal of Manchin's argument back on March 24.  In it, he explains why the filibuster and "bipartisanship" are two separate issues, from a practical and historical perspective.  Here are brief excerpts:

As discussion of reforming the filibuster has picked up, a myth has sprouted up alongside it. This myth says the filibuster is the primary key to bipartisanship in the U.S. Senate. Reform the filibuster, or worse do away with it completely, and bipartisanship will become extinct, according to the myth.

It’s time to bust that myth. I know firsthand how bipartisanship actually works in the Senate, and I can attest that the filibuster is not an essential ingredient to bipartisanship. Full stop.

To have bipartisanship, some members from both parties need to agree on what the problem is and on how to solve it. If this doesn’t happen, there will be no bipartisanship whether the filibuster is on the table or not. I spent eight years working with Sen. John McCain to advance and negotiate one of the last comprehensive bipartisan pieces of legislation to be enacted — the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act of 2002 — and the filibuster was an obstacle, not an assist, in the process. [snip]

Today, Democrats and Republicans do not agree on what the problem is, let alone what the solution is, when it comes to critical issues including voting rights, labor rights, climate change, or immigration. Keeping the filibuster in its current form will not change this, but it will almost certainly prevent any legislation on these issues from passing.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s sudden defense of the filibuster as necessary for bipartisanship is a rewriting of history. [snip]

The filibuster is a Senate rule that empowers a minority of senators to thwart the will of a majority of senators. That’s its purpose and its power.

There is no bipartisan-inducing power to the number 60. The filibuster would be just as effective at thwarting a bill backed by 25 Democrats and 26 Republicans as it is at thwarting a bill backed by 51 senators of the same party. The current Senate could achieve bipartisanship with 51 senators, or even 55 or 56. And yet in such an instance of bipartisanship, the filibuster would still be lethal, just as it was for many years with McCain-Feingold. [snip]

The GOP’s perpetuation of the myth that the filibuster inspires bipartisanship is mere subterfuge. To achieve 60 votes on critical issues like voting rights or immigration in today’s hyperpartisan world, a bill would likely consist of little more than the effective date, as McConnell sought with McCain-Feingold.

The filibuster should be reformed, and bipartisanship should be pursued. These are separate issues and separate discussions. One should happen soon. The other is an ongoing struggle that involves senators and their voters, not Senate procedure.

We don't know what Manchin's (and Sen. Sinema for that matter) play is, but we know that unless his views are somehow more nuanced than they appear on the surface, it will put him squarely in the obstructionist caucus now populated exclusively by the 50- member Republican Senate contingent. Maybe he needs to have a "come to Russ" moment?

In the meantime, a few reactions to Manchin's latest pronouncement:

 

 

 

 

 

And, from that same Adam Jentleson who literally wrote the book on the filibuster, this primer that even Joe Manchin might understand:

 

 

 

Monday, March 15, 2021

Monday Reading

 

As always, please go to the links for the full articles/ op eds.

Beware the Ides of March!  Also --

 


Teri Kanefield explains why Republicans are masters at making up enemies to hide their "sadopolulism":

In a nutshell: Republicans are very good at inventing enemies. Made-up enemies are safest. That's why, to paraphrase George Orwell, Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Republicans responded to Biden's bill — which is popular with most Americans — by fueling a massive conservative backlash to what they have termed "cancel culture." Fox News spent days decrying the decision of Dr. Seuss Enterprises (a private company) to stop publishing a few lesser-known Dr. Seuss books, which the estate deemed outdated and racist. This fake controversy, and its perceived threat to the American way of life, is a made-up enemy. Yet Republicans and their media spokespersons spun this as a culture war waged by radical leftists on "Green Eggs and Ham" (a book unaffected by the decision of Dr. Seuss Enterprises). Dangerous to American free speech? Hardly. Excellent distraction from the GOP's Covid-19 obstruction? Absolutely. [snip]

According to Yale history professor Timothy Snyder, Republican leaders' motives are likely deeply cynical. Snyder proposes a concept called "sadopopulism," which refers to politicians who purposefully govern in a way that makes life worse for the bulk their supporters. Snyder presents the strategy in a few easy steps:

  • Identify an "enemy."
  • Enact policies that create pain in your own constituents.
  • Blame the ensuing pain on the "enemies."
  • Present yourself as the strongman who can fight the enemies.

In a nutshell, you can't have a white grievance party if your constituents aren't grieving. Policy that keeps the rank and file in pain keeps them angry, and perversely that can help you at the ballot box by directing their anger at "made-up enemies" who — so the story goes — are powered by Democrats who are out to ruin (cancel) American culture. The formula creates a brutal political incentive to embrace policies that hurt their own constituents.

Snyder explains that this formula is commonly used by modern-day oligarchs and would-be oligarchs. If you're a would-be oligarch — if you want both wealth and power — you have no incentive to give more real power to the people but every incentive to make it look like you are fighting for them publicly.  (our emphasis)

Dylan Matthews demonstrates why Republicans are so anxious to change the subject from the enormous impact the COVID relief and stimulus bill (the "American Rescue Plan Act") will have on poverty in America, similar to LBJ's war on poverty programs:

With Congress’s passage of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, another Democratic president with a reputation as a moderate (and who came through the Senate and the vice presidency) is putting his stamp on American policy. The Covid-19 relief bill, which passed the US House on Wednesday afternoon and was signed into law by President Biden on Thursday, is the most far-reaching anti-poverty legislation in more than 50 years.

The American Rescue Plan sends $1,400 checks to adults and child dependents and extends bonus federal unemployment benefits through September (continuing the work done in 2020’s stimulus bills). It also increases the child tax credit for 2021, offers subsidies to help low-income people in states that didn’t expand Medicaid purchase health insurance on the ACA marketplaces, provides housing vouchers for people at risk of homelessness, and boosts the earned income tax credit (EITC) for adults without kids.

Johnson’s war on poverty has gotten a raw deal in historical memory. Ronald Reagan’s quip that “poverty won the war” remains the dominant assessment of Johnson’s efforts. (It certainly didn’t help matters that Johnson escalated US involvement in a real, catastrophic war around the same time.)

But poverty didn’t win the war. When two economists tried to construct a more accurate measure of American poverty between 1960 and 2010, they found that Johnson presided over a massive decline in poverty. In 1960, the rate of consumption poverty in the US was 30.8 percent. By 1972, it had declined to 16.4 percent. Johnson’s efforts appeared to be the main lever cutting the poverty rate nearly in half.

The effects of the American Rescue Plan won’t be quite as massive, but they’ll be in a similar ballpark. By one estimate, overall poverty will fall by a third, and child poverty by over half. Whether Biden ends up matching LBJ’s achievement depends on what he and the Democratic-controlled Congress do in the months ahead.

Some Republican weasels are already trying to take credit for something they all voted against. They know how popular the legislation is and will continue to be.  So, Democrats can't let up now.  Let's bet on "Making peoples' lives better" wins elections.

Sahil Kapur writes about a "tremendous sea change" in Dems' attitudes toward the filibuster, and one particular change that might garner the support needed to succeed in breaking this tyranny of the minority in the Senate:

Under current rules established in 1975, the onus is on the majority to find 60 votes to proceed on legislation. If 41 or more senators vote against it, the bill stalls and there's nothing the majority can do. [Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff] Merkley calls it "a no show, no effort, silent, invisible" blockade.

A talking filibuster would flip that onus, requiring a group of 41 senators to hold the floor and take turns talking incessantly — to air their grievances with the legislation being considered.

Eventually, Merkley explained, one of two things will happen: The majority party will lose its nerve and pull the bill, or the number of senators present will fall under 41 and enable the majority to advance the bill with a three-fifths majority.

There can be no illusion that, somehow, the filibuster must be ended in its present form in order for major Democratic initiatives to pass, including the "For the People Act," H.R. 1, which will counter Republican voter suppression efforts in multiple states.  We shouldn't have to deal with a reactionary rule that has operated as an obstacle to progress and a defender of white supremacy for most of its life. Getting H.R. 1 through the Senate is imperative if we're going to have a fair playing field in our elections from now on.

We conclude in our normal fashion, by recommending a visit over to Infidel 753's blog round- up for a comprehensive array of links to interesting posts from around the Internet.  From a colorful squid, to virtual walks through foreign cities (ed.: wow!), to why conflicts over the minimum wage mustn't divide us, Infidel has curated some amazing links once again.


Monday, March 8, 2021

Monday Reading

 

As always, please go to the links for the full articles/op eds.

President Biden's coronavirus response is receiving high marks:

On the cusp of scoring his first major legislative achievement, more than two-thirds of Americans (68%) approve of Biden's approach to the pandemic -- a consistent result since he took office in January. At a moment of deep political polarization, his steady approval is also reinforced by positive marks from 35% of Republicans, 67% of independents and an overwhelming 98% of Democrats in the poll, which was conducted by Ipsos in partnership with ABC News using Ipsos' KnowledgePanel.

As is his overall performance:

A solid majority of Americans say they approve of President Joe Biden’s early job performance, according to a new survey, with even more respondents giving him positive marks for his management of the coronavirus pandemic.

The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released Friday reports that 60 percent of U.S. adults surveyed approve of Biden’s handling of his job, including 94 percent of Democrats and 22 percent of Republicans.

Benefits that will accrue from passage of the "big fucking deal" American Rescue Plan Act will build over the course of the year, as America slowly begins to recover.  Continuing competent leadership along with Democrats sticking together and acting boldly will hopefully addict them to the great feeling that comes with winning.  (Speaking of which, let's stay bold on raising the minimum wage effort -- push the "Raise the Wage Act," H.R. 603, that was stripped out of the American Rescue Plan Act!)

On the coronavirus front, vaccinations are saving the lives of the most vulnerable:

The number of COVID-19 cases and deaths at America's nursing homes has dropped significantly since December as millions of vaccine doses have been shot into the arms of residents and staff.

The weekly rate of COVID-19 cases at nursing homes plummeted 89% from early December through the second week of February. By comparison, the nationwide case rate dropped 58% and remains higher than figures reported before late October.

Nursing home cases are at the lowest level since May, when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began requiring the nation’s more than 15,500 facilities to report cases each week. The 3,505 new cases reported the second week of February are nearly half as many recorded the week before and just one-tenth as many counted in one December week, the highest of the pandemic.

Here's Will Bunch on the Republicans' strategy now that they blew their chance to help the working and middle classes:

This week showed us both what the GOP is incapable of doing — aiding the middle class — but also its fundamental three-prong strategy for the elections of 2022 and 2024. First, burn a lot of empty political calories on cultural outrage such as the supposed banning (not really) of Dr. Seuss and (also not really) Mr. Potato Head, with the subliminal messages that what leftists really want to cancel is their white supremacy. Second, muddy the waters on the pandemic with “free-dumb” policies like Texas and Mississippi ending mask mandates and other restrictions just as new variants appear. Third — and this is really the centerpiece — is to fall back on Trump’s 2020 Big Lie to pass a slew of voting restrictions targeting Black voters, Latinos, or the young, to win in 2022 not on the best ideas but by picking the voters.

The fact that the current Republican Party is so quick to fall back on racism, xenophobia and misogyny makes me happy that its leaders seem to have also flunked Poly-Sci 101. The opportunity for the GOP to become a true majority national party as a foil to the increasingly diploma-wrapped image of the Democrats — in a nation where just 37% of adults currently hold four-year college degrees — was right there, if the party had been willing to put its money where its mouth was, on Cruz and his phony-baloney rhetoric about cabdrivers and the wait staff.

Instead, the 2022 election will turn on Republicans’ success as an anti-democratic (with a small “d”) party trying to keep as many legitimate voters away from the ballot box as possible. For Democrats, the ultimate lesson of this weekend may prove less about economics and more about courage in using just 51 votes to make the tough calls for saving America. Giving aid to the working class was a good first step for the Democrats, but whether it matters at the polls in 20 months depends on their bravery in abolishing the filibuster and passing laws to make sure that the working class can still vote.

Picking up on that last point, Norman Ornstein has a few suggestions for how Democrats can finesse opposition to the filibuster (especially to pass the essential H.R. 1, "For the People Act") (paywall):

Instead of naming and shaming them, Democrats might consider looking at what Manchin and Sinema like about the filibuster. Sinema recently said, “Retaining the legislative filibuster is not meant to impede the things we want to get done. Rather, it’s meant to protect what the Senate was designed to be. I believe the Senate has a responsibility to put politics aside and fully consider, debate, and reach compromise on legislative issues that will affect all Americans.” Last year, Manchin said, “The minority should have input — that’s the whole purpose for the Senate. If you basically do away with the filibuster altogether for legislation, you won’t have the Senate. You’re a glorified House. And I will not do that.”

If you take their views at face value, the goal is to preserve some rights for the Senate minority, with the aim of fostering compromise. The key, then, is to find ways not to eliminate the filibuster on legislation but to reform it to fit that vision.  Here are some options:

Make the minority do the work... One way to restore the filibuster’s original intent would be requiring at least two-fifths of the full Senate, or 40 senators, to keep debating instead requiring 60 to end debate. The burden would fall to the minority, who’d have to be prepared for several votes, potentially over several days and nights, including weekends and all-night sessions, and if only once they couldn’t muster 40 — the equivalent of cloture — debate would end, making way for a vote on final passage of the bill in question.

Go back to the “present and voting” standard. A shift to three-fifths of the Senate “present and voting” would similarly require the minority to keep most of its members around the Senate when in session.  [snip]

Narrow the supermajority requirement. Another option would be to follow in the direction of the 1975 reform, which reduced two-thirds (67 out of a full 100) to three-fifths (60 out of 100), and further reduce the threshold to 55 senators — still a supermajority requirement, but a slimmer one...

With one of the two Democrats on record as opposing ending the filibuster, West Virginia conservaDem Sen. Joe Manchin, on the Sunday talk shows demonstrating he's not unalterably opposed to reforming the filibuster, this is looking more like a problem that can be solved -- especially since Democrats get to write the rules.  Manchin seemed to embrace the "make the minority do the work" option above, so that's a great starting point.

We end with our usual entreaty to head over to Infidel 753's link round-up for the best and most comprehensive selection of links to posts from around the Internet (which is where we found the story on nursing home vaccinations, above).  But, don't just stop there. He writes some thought- provoking posts every week that, whether you always agree with him or not, are always worth your time to read.


Friday, February 26, 2021

Priorities One And Two

 

There are two legislative priorities that are absolute musts for Democrats to pass:  the $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill and comprehensive voting rights legislation.  Both efforts have garnered near- universal opposition by bad faith Republicans anxious to sink the Obama Biden Administration and put the country back on the white nationalist, proto- fascist Trumpist road it was on when they held power.

The wildly popular COVID Relief bill is expected to pass the House of Representatives today via budget reconciliation with no Republican votes. It then goes to the Senate where it will face the same wall of bad faith Republican opposition.  With the Senate Parliamentarian ruling against including the $15 minimum wage that was causing some conservaDems heartburn (assuming she's not overruled), chances of passage on a party- line vote have increased somewhat.  The House will have to vote on any changes made by the Senate, but the bill is expected to pass before mid- March.

As we witness gerrymandered State legislatures controlled by Republicans begin to introduce and pass a flood of voter suppression laws based on Trump's bogus "Big Lie" assertions about voter fraud, it's becoming more imperative than ever that the right to vote is enhanced and protected.  The vehicles for that are H.R. 1, the For the People Act, and H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.  Since the budget reconciliation process (which requires only a majority vote) isn't possible for passage of these bills, Republicans will use the filibuster in the Senate to try to kill them... unless Democrats act to change the Senate rules to allow these democracy- defending bills to be voted on.  It's possible for this to happen in such a way that it mollifies objections by conservaDems like Sens. Manchin and Sinema, by weakening rather than abolishing the filibuster outright.  Ian Millhiser points to several options:

  • Make fewer bills subject to the filibuster: The Senate can create carveouts and exempt certain matters from the filibuster altogether, as it does with bills subject to the reconciliation process.
  • Reduce the power of individual rogue senators: The Senate could make it harder to initiate a filibuster. Right now, unanimous consent is required to hold a vote without invoking the time-consuming cloture process. But the rules could be changed to allow an immediate vote unless a larger bloc of senators — perhaps two or five or 10 — objected to such a vote, instead of just one.
  • Make it easier to break a filibuster: The Senate could reduce the number of votes necessary to invoke cloture. This could be done as an across-the-board reform, like the 1975 change to the filibuster rule that reduced the cloture threshold from 67 to 60. Or it could be done by creating a carveout for certain matters, such as the 2013 and 2017 reforms that allowed presidential nominees to be confirmed by a simple majority vote.
  • Reduce or eliminate the time it takes to invoke cloture: The Senate could reduce the amount of time necessary to invoke cloture and conduct a final vote. This could be done by allowing a swifter vote on a cloture petition, by reducing or eliminating the time devoted to post-closure debate, or both.


By the way, support for voting reforms is also very popular, besides being the right thing to do:

 

 

However it is done, the voting rights measures must pass soon. If not, the election rigging going on in many states by the proto- fascist Republican party will ensure their return to power and the end of what's left of our democracy.

Friday, November 29, 2013

A Profile in Hypocrisy

Your hypocrite, the ever-frothing Charles "Kraphammer" Krauthammer, today on the end of the presidential nominee filibuster:
This was a disgraceful violation of more than two centuries of precedent. If a bare majority can change the fundamental rules that govern an institution, then there are no rules. Senate rules today are whatever the majority decides they are that morning.

What distinguishes an institution from a flash mob is that its rules endure.
Now, courtesy of Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog, we look back through the mists of time:
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that, back in 2005, Krauthammer called the judicial filibuster "the bastard child of Democratic bitterness over recent lost elections" and said that a GOP vote to break it would have been "a profile in courage." 
So, Democrats in power:  rules that favor knuckle-draggers must prevail!   Republicans in power:  rules, schmules!  Toujours la merde, Monsieur Kraphammer!

(Image:  Kraphammer, bastard child of Republican bitterness.)

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Sunday Cartoons - Nuking the Filibuster Edition


(click to enlarge)


(Nick Anderson, Houston Chronicle)


(Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal-Constitution)


(Rob Rogers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)

You get the idea, even if the once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle and Ruth Marcus don't.

Saturday, November 23, 2013

One Reason It's A New Day In The Senate


It's people like Senator Christopher Murphy (D-CT):
"These folks [tea baggers] have come to Washington to destroy government from within and will use any tool at their disposal," Murphy said. "To the extent that we have the ability to take tools away from the tea party, we should do it. And one of the tools was the filibuster. Another was the belief that Democrats would cave in the face of another shutdown or debt default."
Democrats with a spine.  Who'da thunk it?!

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Rethugs Abandon McConnell, Agree to Vote on Obama Nominations

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had what appears to be a major victory today in the ongoing effort to blunt Rethuglican efforts to filibuster Obama administration executive branch nominees.  In exchange for having to deploy the "nuclear option" of changing Senate rules to allow a 51-vote majority to invoke cloture, a group of Rethugs led by Arizona Sen. John "Grampypants" McCain Boehnered abandoned Senate Minority Leader and turtle impersonator Mitch "Missy" McConnell and voted to proceed with the nomination of Richard Cordray to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Six other nominations to executive branch positions were also to get cloture votes, although there's a catch (there always is, no?):
In short, Republicans would confirm nominees to all seven positions, a big concession for the GOP. But in a concession for Democrats, they would replace two recess-appointed nominees to the National Labor Relations Board - Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, pictured below - with new nominees under the following condition: Republicans pledge to confirm any two replacements by President Obama to the board by Aug. 27.  
A victory, however small and transient, is a victory when dealing with the nihilist zombies running the Rethuglican party in Congress.  But we should point out that the agreement struck today doesn't address judicial nominations or voting on pieces of legislation.  It remains to be seen whether today's  "agreement" will last, or if it's a one-time concession.  But the fact that Reid used the threat of the "nuclear option" and it made the Rethugs blink, proved perhaps that it can work again (barring true filibuster reform).

Plus, any time that lying hypocrite Missy McConnell loses, it's a good day.

BONUS:  Joan McCarter reminds us that we do have Missy McConnell and his endless filibustering to thank for something:
... we wouldn't have Senator Elizabeth Warren if Republicans hadn't been so terrified of her and raised so much hell about opposing her as head of the new [Consumer Financial Protection] agency. If they had hadn't fought her so hard, she wouldn't be in the Senate. On the Banking Committee.
Thanks, Mitch McConnell!
(Image:  Sen. Missy McConnell having a sad, via DonkeyHotey)

Saturday, January 26, 2013

What's It Going To Take?

From Balloon Juice:
"There’s a lot of talk on this blog about the inevitable Democratic majority, but how many more voters do Democrats have to gather before their agenda actually becomes law? The Republicans out-gerrymandered Democrats to keep the House, they’re working to slant the Electoral College in their direction, and they just won a big victory in the Senate that will let them obstruct for two more years. As DougJ memorably said, Democrats are still coming to a knife fight with a tote bag, and we keep getting cut." (our emphasis)
You can add to that list the recent ruling by the three Rethuglican hacks D.C. Circuit Court voiding President Obama's recess appointments (pending appeal to the =hack= Supreme Court). Kudos all around.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

White House On Filibuster Reform: Get It Done

"The President has said many times that the American people are demanding action. They want to see progress, not partisan delay games. That hasn't changed, and the President supports Majority Leader Reid's efforts to reform the filibuster process.

"Over the past few years important pieces of legislation like the DREAM Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and the American Jobs Act weren't even allowed to be debated, and judicial nominations and key members of the administration are routinely forced to wait months for an up-or-down vote. The American people deserve a United States Senate that puts them first, instead of partisan delay.
" -- statement today to the Huffington Post by Dan Pfeiffer, White House Communications Director. It's long past time to do something about this parliamentary anachronism that has been so egregiously abused by the Rethuglicans in the past 4 years.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Quote of the Week

"In a world where the majority can govern with or without you, you have a strong incentive to participate constructively in the process. In a world where the majority can't govern without you, and won't be reelected if they can't govern, you have a strong incentive to walk away from the process. Success for the majority means electoral failure for you. That means your interests and the country's interests are not aligned." -- Ezra Klein, in his column in today's Kaplan Daily. Klein discusses at length the recent decision by Sen. "Missy" McConnell (Rethug-KY) and his new girlfriend Sen. Harry "Mr. Peepers" Reid (D-Wishywashy) not to change the dysfunctional filibuster rules in the Senate. It's a decision that should rightly haunt the Democrats, and "Mr. Peepers" in particular, simply because it wasn't in the country's interest to continue that polarizing anachronism.