Normally, I’m a pretty straight shooter. As much as I hate to admit it, what I have to say here is hypocritical, because I’m a long term opponent of the filibuster, and a long term proponent of the nuclear option. That said, thank God for the filibastards.
Gleeful Republicans see nothing standing in their way to giving tax cuts to the rich, starving the olds and poors, and a Supreme Court that will put women back in the kitchen, pregnant and barefoot now that they have Donald Trump going to the White House and a lock on Congress. Nothing that is, but Senate Democrats and the filibuster. The way around that is of course the way Democrats did it when Republicans were refusing to allow President Obama’s appointments to get to the floor—modifying the Senate rules with 51 votes to end the filibuster on them. So McConnell just has to do that with the 52 votes he now has (or likely will following the Louisiana run-off), right? Or not.
On Wednesday, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) may have put a dagger in the scheme.
Asked by The Huffington Post about ending the filibuster, he was blunt.
“Are you kidding?” he said with some vehemence. “I’m one of the biggest advocates for the filibuster. It’s the only way to protect the minority, and we’ve been in the minority a lot more than we’ve been in the majority. It’s just a great, great protection for the minority.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the most vehement of the Never Trumpers, agrees, telling reporters on Tuesday that it’s "a horrible, terrible idea," and he would oppose it on the floor "in a heartbeat." Where Graham goes, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is pretty likely to follow, so there’s a definite two and probably three votes to derail any visions McConnell has of neutering the Democrats.
That’s not to say that McCain, a few "moderates" like Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Graham, and an appeasement Democrat or two—the best bets are Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Angus King (I-ME)—won’t become a "gang" to try to let some of Trump’s appointments or legislative proposals get through. The likeliest place we’d see this is in a Supreme Court nomination. There are probably enough endangered red state Democrats looking at their 2018 campaigns to pad those numbers so there will be a Trump Supreme Court… [emphasis added]
From <Daily Kos>
Yes I’m a hypocrite today, but at least I’m not going to act like a Republican and claim that I’ve always favored the filibuster. What can I say? Desperate times sometimes call for desperate measures. I don’t think that Democrats will obstruct for its own sake the way Republicans have for the last eight years. I don’t believe Democrats will use the filibuster, unless they can make their case to the American people that the action serves America’s needs. I’m going to put my activism against the filibuster on hold as long as my activism against the kind of measures Democrats will filibuster is far more important for America than opposing the filibuster, but I won’t pretend that it isn’t an anachyronism, like the electoral college.
21 Responses to “Thank God for Filibastards!”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I've never thought of you as a hypocrite, and in these dangerous times its understandable……sadly, dropping the bomb is not something that can always be stopped by Congress…….let us hope President Obama at least puts these weapons on some type of "safety" so that it takes longer than a few minutes to launch……..
Yes, it's hypocritical and understandable, but it's also a possibility I wouldn't count on too much. Modifying the Senate rules to end filibustering on Republicans is precariously dependent on some of the same Republicans. And you know how trustworthy they have shown themselves in the past. Will they keep standing up to Drumpf and his ilk in the Senate when they didn't when push came to shove at the convention? They do what they've always done: stand "on principle" for the media and their base but when the GOP puts a little pressure on them they pretend they never have and dish out other "principles" with the same ease. McCain has been switching sides so often that no one really knows whose side he's on now.
I don't think you'll have to lose sleep over your "hypocrisy" very much longer, TomCat, and oppose filibustering as much as you did before. And that is sad, not for the getting more sleep sleep of course, because you won't, but because it'll be so much harder for the Democrats to block Drumpf. And for what it's worth: a real hypocrite will not only have all the arguments for his new decision, but will vehemently deny being a hypocrite. You don't. Ergo…
Lona, it's now Republicans who are able to changer the Senate Rules to end the filibuster.
And we may end up having to be grateful to Orrin Hatch, of all people.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/17/1600870/-Crotchety-Orrin-Hatch-puts-a-big-wrinkle-in-McConnell-s-potential-nuking-of-the-filibuster
I'm quite aware of that TomCat, as I'm also aware that they might not be able to do that when McConnel doesn't get all his Republican senators aboard. Some of them have said they won't go along, but my point is that you can't trust them to oppose McConnel.
Good. Then I'm sorry I misundertook what you meant.
No worries 😀 😀
What Lona said!!
I second what Lona said!!
I agree, I have never been more grateful for the filibuster. I hope it is in place when we need it most.
If a lady must be allowed to change her mind, I don't see why a TomCat shouldn't be allowed to change his. Also, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblon of little minds." Emerson, I believe. I appreciate as much as anyone your dedication to the truth that leads you to confess to hypocrisy here, but I also think you are being to harsh to yourself. I won't even suggest you go and sin no more. On the contrary, if you see anything else that we need to revisit our opposition to or support of, bring it up. esperate times to indeed require desperate measures, and the times, they are desperate. We need to keep remembering that.
Actually, I haven't changed my mind. I still consider it an anachronism that is out of place in a modern democratic republic. However, were it not for amother anachronism, Drumphenfarten would not be Fuhrer.
When you stand solidly "for" or "against" something, no matter what, you very often lose purpose. It is ok to not be against filibustering if it is used for honorable means, not nasty shenanigans, such as the Repubs have done to Obama.
I don't Dems will do like the GOP did by shutting down the government. They need to be sure that what they use it for is for good. If they could just figure out how to filibuster the electoral college votes!!!
Seldom are absolutes advisable. We must be flexible enough to know when to stand on principle and when to be a bit more flexible.
I can say it no better than that which has already been said.
I agree with everyone TC…
I have seen this on EcoWatch by Noam Chomsky – forgive me if it has already been mentioned, but I am too poorly to check…
http://www.ecowatch.com/noam-chomsky-trump-2093271018.html?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=966b95660f-MailChimp+Email+Blast&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-966b95660f-85907109
"Exit polls reveal that the passionate support for Trump was inspired primarily by the belief that he represented change, while Clinton was perceived as the candidate who would perpetuate their distress. The "change" that Trump is likely to bring will be harmful or worse, but it is understandable that the consequences are not clear to isolated people in an atomized society lacking the kinds of associations (like unions) that can educate and organize. That is a crucial difference between today's despair and the generally hopeful attitudes of many working people under much greater economic duress during the Great Depression of the 1930s.
"There are other factors in Trump's success. Comparative studies show that doctrines of white supremacy have had an even more powerful grip on American culture than in South Africa, and it's no secret that the white population is declining. In a decade or two, whites are projected to be a minority of the work force and not too much later, a minority of the population. The traditional conservative culture is also perceived as under attack by the successes of identity politics, regarded as the province of elites who have only contempt for the ''hard-working, patriotic, church-going [white] Americans with real family values'' who see their familiar country as disappearing before their eyes.
"One of the difficulties in raising public concern over the very severe threats of global warming is that 40 percent of the U.S. population does not see why it is a problem, since Christ is returning in a few decades. About the same percentage believe that the world was created a few thousand years ago. If science conflicts with the Bible, so much the worse for science. It would be hard to find an analogue in other societies.
"The Democratic Party abandoned any real concern for working people by the 1970s and they have therefore been drawn to the ranks of their bitter class enemies, who at least pretend to speak their language—Reagan's folksy style of making little jokes while eating jelly beans, George W. Bush's carefully cultivated image of a regular guy you could meet in a bar who loved to cut brush on the ranch in 100-degree heat and his probably faked mispronunciations (it's unlikely that he talked like that at Yale), and now Trump, who gives voice to people with legitimate grievances—people who have lost not just jobs, but also a sense of personal self-worth—and who rails against the government that they perceive as having undermined their lives (not without reason).
"One of the great achievements of the doctrinal system has been to divert anger from the corporate sector to the government that implements the programs that the corporate sector designs, such as the highly protectionist corporate/investor rights agreements that are uniformly mis-described as "free trade agreements" in the media and commentary. With all its flaws, the government is, to some extent, under popular influence and control, unlike the corporate sector. It is highly advantageous for the business world to foster hatred for pointy-headed government bureaucrats and to drive out of people's minds the subversive idea that the government might become an instrument of popular will, a government of, by and for the people."
I do agree with this – for example I observed during George W's presidency how his eyes would gleam with laughter when he made one of his apparently spontaneous 'faux pas' in a public speech and appeared to mangle his lines again – it was so obvious that he was doing it to connect with those he wanted to manipulate. Yet all people seemed to notice was what he said, not in the least HOW he said it. (I also remember the Queen giving him a look when he did another mistake in a public ceremony – and he dissolved in laughter saying that she had given him a look that only a mother could give to a child. I noticed, but few others really seemed to. Sadly).
I hope this makes sense, it is written whilst taking anti migraine meds, so it may not, but I hope it does!
Thanks for the Noam Chomsky quotes, Pat. They really get to the core of the matter.
Sorry to hear about your migrane; is the storm getting to you too? I hope it'll subside soon. Take care.
I agree with him, Pat!
Chomsky makes great sense – and you may be making even more sense! In our defense, it is really tough to look at a jerk so closely as to see the clues of manipulation when one is personally affected by his jerkiness and therefore barely able to stand to look at him at all!
Thanks all. Hugs!