TPM Editor’s Blog: What To Make Of The Filibuster Deal?

[DonViejo]

DAVID KURTZ JANUARY 24, 2013, 1:48 PM

A Senate staffer emails with his take on the filibuster rules change agreed to by Reid and McConnell:

I think that your posture on rules reform — culminating in “Oh, that’s not good” — has not shown the other side of the argument for progressives.

All Senate Democrats agree that rules reform is essential. Now we appear to be on the brink of that, and the “fix the Senate crowd” is dismayed. Unlike last time Reid isn’t proposing just a “gentleman’s agreement,” these are real changes to Rule 22. And these appear to have minority support. This is a big deal.

You don’t agree (and it’s fine) but there is a strong, progressive case against pursuing rules reforms via the nuclear/constitutional option.

I have not see anyone show how these rules will help advance the progressive cause and just as troubling is the lack of reflection about how rules reforms under the constitutional option could be used to hurt us someday when President Rubio teams up with Speaker Cantor and Leader McConnell. Is the progressive community oblivious about what happens when the minority has no tools to prevent majority excess? What happened this week in Virginia much less Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin the past several years should make progressives more circumspect about the value of mechanisms, like the filibuster, that preserve minority rights.

-snip-

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/01/what_to_make_of_the_filibuster_deal.php?ref=fpblg

[old guy]

1. Bogus argument.

If that group of repubs were in control they would simply do away with the filibuster and the option would be gone anyway. Anyone believing otherwise has been living in a cave somewhere.

[Angry Dragon]

3. +1,114

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Thank you for saying this in the first reply

I was gonna post that. Agree 100%.

[longship]

2. I will provisionally accept this explanation.

I am not willing to set my hair on fire about, like some are doing here.

However, I am also not very happy about this outcome. The Senate GOP certainly deserved the nuclear option for their four years of outright and blatant obstruction. But it is somehow very satisfying that, although much damage has been done by this obstruction, President Obama was easily reelected and seems to have roped in a good deal of the obstruction since the election.

The GOP seems to have positioned themselves right where we want them. They are caving; the tea party power is setting; their extreme words and policies are not resonating with the public.

So, I will support Harry Reid on this, provisionally. I sincerely hope he is right on this.

Also, if the GOP does take back the Senate in 2014, the nuclear option may very well indeed be a very bad idea. Plus, consider what the nuclear option might do for our chances of retaining our majority. Please factor that into the equation.

Let's calm down and see how this works out before we put a lit match to our hair.

Again, I am not happy about it. But I have no choice but to see the situation through with provisional support.

[dsc]

4. call me old fashioned but I think elections ought to have meaning

In 2009 the Wake county school board was taken over by the GOP, and the GOP went crazy, they fired the Superintendent, adopted a plan to resegregate schools, and caused chaos. In 2011, the Dems took it back. In 2008, when we won control of government we should have been able to implement our policies and then be judged on them. Instead we ended up having to implement many GOP policies and got voted out when they didn't work. That is the opposite of elections mattering.

[high density]

5. Essentially: "Democrats played nice, therefor it is good"

Sorry, the cutthroat GOP doesn't care if we're nice or not.

Senate Rules shouldn’t be based upon a movie and the filibuster should not be changed to shift the burden on the minority — that is the opposite of its purpose. The filibuster is to force the majority to work with the minority. Waiting out the minority is not the same thing.

The definition of what the filibuster is has been changed by the GOP's abuse of it. What "should" happen in a perfect world doesn't matter. The 41-vote rule would require the GOP to put more effort into their record obstructionism, which doesn't seem like an outrageous idea.