The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government.When one party wants to "fundamentally transform" the country and the other kind of likes the way it was originally designed, and the former party is in power... I'm kinda glad it's not functioning. No, really.
Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session.Kind of like Ted Kennedy got the Massechusetts legislature to repeal the Governor's right to appoint replacement Senators when they were afraid they might lose John Kerry's seat and they had a Republican governor, but hurriedly re-granted it when it was clear Ted's seat itself was about to be vacated by his demise and they had a Democrat for a governor.
One rule for thee, but not for me. Wanna take bets on who would want to put the filibuster rule back once Republicans gain a majority?
Mr. Krugman goes on...
Don’t hold your breath. As it is, Democrats don’t even seem able to score political points by highlighting their opponents’ obstructionism.Do the words "filibuster-proof majority" mean anything to you, Paul? The Democrats have huge majorities in both chambers, one of them so massive that there would be no way for Republicans to stop anything in the Senate -- and the Democrats want to blame the Republicans for being "obstructionists".
Paul, the reason the Democrats can't score political points on this is that Americans are not stupid.
1 comment:
Yeah, now that the Republicans have a 41st vote in the Senate, suddenly Krugman and his friends are all over "ending the filibuster."
Reminds me of back in 2000 when they were talking about getting rid of the Electoral College. You know, after it delivered a win for Bush.
A little too timely, isn't it?
Post a Comment