Comments on: Why it made sense for the GOP Senate NOT to change the filibuster rule

By: Cornhead

Cornhead — Sat, 19 Mar 2016 13:03:37 +0000

People want action. If the cloture rule was repealed, then bills get passed. Obama then has to sign or veto.

The burden of proof then shifted from the Senate to Obama.

By: Geoffrey Britain

Geoffrey Britain — Sat, 19 Mar 2016 00:04:03 +0000

"Of course, the Democrats ~~could~~ will do it themselves," There is NO 'could'. It is as certain as democrats voting to raise taxes. "but in this case the Republicans couldn’t even blame the Democrats for their own loss of power to block the Democrats in the Senate from doing whatever a simple majority wanted to do." Your own valid assertion neo, serves as rebuttal; "It seems to me, however, that most voters wouldn’t have been paying all that much attention, and Obama’s supporters (and the MSM) would have spun it as GOP refusal to compromise." No matter what they do, the left will blame the right and, will especially do so, when it is they who are guilty of what they accuse the innocent. By waiting to jettison the cloture/filibuster rule till they have a republican President, they open the door to democrat/MSM assertions of tyranny. That the democrats did it first will be 'forgotten' in MSM coverage and, the meme that the evil republicans are once again up to their underhanded, immoral, evil machinations, all in favor of greed... will be reinforced among the LIVs. And if the republicans do not jettison the rule, then they continue to insist that it's a knife fight, all while the democrats shoot at them.

By: blert

blert — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 23:59:36 +0000

One dares not end the cloture rule as it otherwise is too easy for the minority to be crushed – even if the minority holds 49% of the Senate.

That event has happened to both parties — time and time, again.

By: Ira

Ira — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 23:56:39 +0000

Neo-neocon wrote:

Let me reiterate that I’m not even a Republican, and have no particular interest in kneejerk defense of the Republican Party in the Senate or anywhere else.

That is what I have been saying about myself for ever.

If I remember correctly, I’ve always registered to vote whenever I was qualified to do so, and I always declined to identify a party preference. Why? Because I’m no fan of the stinkin’ Democratic Party, and too many Republicans have been, in my opinion, RINOs.

However, I want to vote in this year’s Republican presidential party, and the California Republican Party rightfully does NOT allow voters who have not registered as Republicans to vote in its primary. So, I’ve re-registered to vote and I am now a registered Republican.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:50:13 +0000

Agree with you Neo regarding maintaining the filibuster rule. My deepest frustration is the Repub Congress having abdicated the control of the purse and de-facto legislation to the Executive branch. The Founders intentions were subverted by both parties perhaps irreversibly.

By: expat

expat — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 21:57:01 +0000

This illustrates my biggest problem with Trumpsters: they are so angry that they are unable to think strategically and have honest debates over the best strategy. Many seem willing to give up the separation of powers just to strike back. Many are more willing to blame Republicans than to blame Dems or Obama. I simply can’t turn off my brain because I get angry.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 21:40:09 +0000

I vacillate on this too, but honestly, I think the problem is that far too often Republicans bring knives to gun fights. Once the Democrats decide it’s ok to Bork, then it’s a noble, but probably futile effort to try to regain decency through restraint. Similarly, someone like Reid would drop the filibuster rule in a heartbeat if it suited him. Trying to restore Senate convention through restraint is probably equally futile. The die have been cast. Once one side decides it’s all about power, then it’s tough to play any other game. I think we’ve seen, with Obama’s regal presidency, open borders, activist judges, attacks on the 1st amendment etc, that the Democrats have crossed that bridge some time ago.

It’s an ongoing problem for any kind of constitutionalist or conservative (in the original meaning of honoring durable institutions). How to avoid powerless irrelevance without compromising institutions of restraint?

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 21:35:43 +0000

Eric:

Yes, but the activists weren’t anywhere near active enough on that. Their activism seems to have focused instead on excoriating the GOP in Congress rather than talking up the times it did something right and made Obama veto something, or the times the House repealed Obamacare and that sort of thing.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 21:32:39 +0000

Neo:
“It seems to me, however, that most voters wouldn’t have been paying all that much attention, and Obama’s supporters (and the MSM) would have spun it as GOP refusal to compromise.”

That’s what activists are for. The party can’t do everything by/for itself.