Comments on: Senate Democrats say: hey, right about now would be a good time…

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:59:28 +0000

It shouldn’t be a formally organized boycott, just lots and lots of people cancelling their reservations.

I prefer taxing the hell out of casinos. Use Reid to pay for ReidCare, at least.

By: Beverly

Beverly — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 05:15:59 +0000

I heard that this is a temporary measure, designed to apply only while the current Senate is in power (i.e., to sunset after the next election, just in case the Racists[TM] get a majority.)

By: notsoheavyd

notsoheavyd — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:26:09 +0000

A related question. Lets assume the Dems lose the senate in 2014. Can they effectively vote to put the filibuster back in the weeks between the election and the new senators taking office? (I mean it’s not like the republicans would undo that vote if that happened.) Just wondering since here in Mass the state house basically just kept changing the rules on how we do replacement of senators when things bit them in the ass in 2004 and 2009

By: Matt_SE

Matt_SE — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 00:31:06 +0000

They expect to have their way. Then, when the shoe is on the other foot they expect the Republicans to be too decent to follow through with their threats.
I personally feel it would be immoral not to follow through. Bad behavior demands to be punished. The other side needs to be reminded why we had the concept of comity to begin with.

By: parker

parker — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 00:27:37 +0000

Look, there is a raccoon in your garbage can!

By: J.J. formerly Jimmy J.

J.J. formerly Jimmy J. — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 23:17:14 +0000

This brings back memories of the long ago (1959) novel by Alan Drury, “Advise and Consent.”

The book’s title comes from the constitutional authority of the President to: “nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consults, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States….”

Advice means nothing if there isn’t also the possibility of withholding consent. The dems claim the Repubs are being too partisan. It is to laugh! In the dems book being bipartisan means doing things their way. Period!

It’s a double edged sword. Pray tell what do the dems expect when the Repubs are the majority? Cannot believe dingy Harry is truly serious, but he has been reciting chapter and verse of why the Rs are obstructionists. Maybe it is only for the PR that’s in the thing. We’ll see.

By: momo

momo — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:43:26 +0000

Have to hand it to the Democrats, they are serious about grabbing power.

This move makes the most sense if you assume they will be the party controlling the Presidency for the next 8+ years, and with Hillary/Elizabeth Warren on deck for the 2016 elections, I think they’re right.

By: kaba

kaba — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:35:30 +0000

Rush and Hannity both postulated that this was primarily to distract from the fortunes of Obamacare. I suppose we should be thankful that they didn’t opt for the Reichstag Fire, (Sorry I meant to burn down the Capitol), instead.

Next on Reid/Pelosi/Obama agenda is Kristal Nacht. So if there is a late night knock at your door, please don’t answer it.

By: Don Carlos

Don Carlos — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:29:29 +0000

What goes around comes around. Let the miserable Dems do the n. option and live with it come 2015.

By: vanderleun

vanderleun — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 18:13:28 +0000

Turns out they have the votes.