What if you had opened the sports page this morning and read, "Jayhawks score 59, lose to Baylor, 59-41?" You'd scratch your head, wouldn't you?
In the midst of the euphoria on the right over Scott Brown's upset win in Massachusetts, let me just act as a small bucket of cold water today. Certainly, I watched with glee as BozO, and the Kennedy legacy were unable to pull the "shoe-in" over the finish line in first place.
The historical sigificance, and political ramifications for the present are not lost on me. I know just how "big" this is. Now, whether Brown's election will be enough to derail health deform is another question, that will be answered in the weeks and months to come. But, it does place the current legislation if not in a grave, at least in an iron lung.
Think back in time with me a few years ago when Georgia Senator Zell Miller was the "darling" of Republicans. Yes, that Democrat Senator was more conservative than many Republicans. You'll remember that Zell made history by being invited to speak prominently at his opposing party's national convention. Oh yeah baby! Zell's the man! Zell's supporting Bush! Zell's got it going on!
Zell even proposed amendments to Senate rules to do away with the "filibuster." You'll remember that when he did, the Senate was embroiled in a war over the approval of President Bush's judicial nominees. Miller argued that the rules were preventing the Senate from carrying out its constitutional duties. And, many, if not most legal and constitutional scholars agreed.
But, this was nothing new for Senator Miller. He had long advocated abandoning the filibuster in the Senate. Now, I understand the justification for those rules. Every bill deserves complete debate, yada yada yada. But, there is something inherently wrong (IMHO) about thwarting the will of the majority...even if it is a majority of morons. Elections matter. And, the consequences of those elections should be realized by the constituents. In addition to that, the filibuster rules cause all kinds of extra need to bribe Senators...as we've seen recently in the health deform debate with Nelson, and my own worthless piece of junk Senator Katrina Mary Landrieu.
Plus, it provides too much political cover for Senators, who can vote for cloture, and then vote against a bill that they know has enough support to pass.
When Zell proposed this, the "attaboys" from the right were deafening! Right on, Zell! You 'da man, Zell!
I wonder if they'd be cheering as loudly today if the same rule changes were proposed. I imagine not.
Face it, Republicans, you've got 41. Forty. Stinkin'. One. (You should have 42, as we all know that Franken doesn't belong there...but that's another subject) Surely, 41 can still beat 59 in the Senate. But it doesn't say much about where you are, or what you can do...or what you can stop.
You've got 41, but many of them are not reliable legislation stoppers. On issues like Cap and Trade, amnesty for illegals, economy crippling debt, etc. your ranks are not likely to close as they have on health care deform. You've got some work to do, Republicans. You've got to get inside the head of your libs, and hope against hope that they will do the right thing.
And, you'd better pray that they don't change the rules...
I, for one, am against the cloture rules. I think if somebody wants to stop legislation, they should take the floor, and refuse to relinquish it, a la Huey Long. Truly make them break out the cots.
So, celebrate righties! Perhaps the political winds really are shifting, and you'll have 47, or 48 after November. But, that's still a "perhaps."
That is all.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Heck, Andy, I'm just celebrating because it looks like Massachusetts actually knew how to mark a ballot with something besides "Kennedy". And I am also celebrating because, no matter how it turns out, it made Harry, Barry, and Nancy's skirts fly up. In a matter of speaking.
ReplyDeleteI think you will find, Andy, that this election of one Senator from the state of Massachusetts changes quite a lot. Pelosi is already conceding she doesn't have the votes she needs in the House to pass the Senate health-care monstrosity and that they are going to 'pause'. So, at the very least this insane pass-it-as-fast-as-you-can process we have recently witnessed has been nipped in the bud.
ReplyDeleteI'm telling you, when the Senate seat occupied for decades by Ted Kennedy is won by an anti-government-run-healtcare, pro-life Republican it means something. And the few remaining sane Dems know it means something and will in all likelihood move to the center.
The risk now is that they will make enough adjustments to save their arses in the November elections...
I worry about Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Remember Jim Jeffords?
ReplyDeleteStaci, just call me "Miss Merry Sunshine." As optimistic a human as I am, Mr. Doubting Thomas rears his head occasionally.
ReplyDeleteDadman, I said, "The historical significance, and political ramifications for the present are not lost on me. I know just how "big" this is." And, I do.
However, the point I was trying to make is that the Republicans are in trouble...and I mean trouble BIG! Sure, they can celebrate for a few days, but the "what ifs" should be weighing heavy on their minds.
A one-vote minority is not to be relied upon. Cap and Trade, Amnesty (we're lookin' at you McCain!...and several others). In fact, I truly believe that we would already have Cap and Trade, and Amnesty had McCain been elected President.
When these other issues reach the Senate, there is ZERO certainty that the Republicans will save our bacon.
You have many Democrat Senators, and Reps that are quitting. They don't need the votes of the enraged masses any longer.
So, I'm not counting the chicks yet.
Paul, Snowe and Collins can be bribed. They are worthless, unreliable, and unattractive (ooooh, that was ugly).
Since you've invoked Snowe and Collins - You may have seen this... and forgive me if you have... but there's more in the same vein here. As for me, I wanna see more pragmatic Republicans elected and less of the hard-right ideologues. But that's just me.
ReplyDeleteI think more than anything the election of Brown is a dose of political reality that will hopefully moderate Dem hubris and arrogance. But, like most political victories, the benefits Republicans accure from it could be short-lived. My hope is Brown's election is merely a harbinger of bigger and better victories for conservative ideology later this year...
ReplyDeleteWhile I am more right leaning than many I know, I would be fine with more centrist Republicans being elected, but it all depends on what their beliefs are.
ReplyDeleteSmaller government, less taxes, less spending on social programs.
I do think you need some hard line right politicians helping to lead things, that is mainly to keep those who are true RINOs and far too willing to compromise from going too far. That is provided they are the majority party.
I think you need more hard liners when the party is in the minority because they will fight for their beliefs rather than sell out.
The country has only had a year of true leftists running things unfettered, and the country is rejecting them.
I couldn't stand Clinton. He was a B actor who only was looking for how things made him look. Hillary was the true believer in that party. Clinton at least moved more center when he saw what happened when he went too left. (Of course he ruled by polls rather than having one single conviction of his own.)
I don't think the socialists are going to be able to push their agendas too far. There is far too much disgust out there. Their programs will also further hurt the economy and its not going to be looking any better come November. Add in the 200,000 Haitians they are giving protected status to work here illegally when we have such high unemployment.
I think right now the republicans are almost in a position as the 70's American car industry was. You couldn't screw them up even when they were making garbage. The thing is they have to put out quality so we don't keep seeing the ping pong battle every two to four years.
Andy, the Constitutional supermajority was a specific hedge against the rule of a narrow majority. Originally it was a 2/3 supermajority, I'm still not sure how the Senate managed to make it a 60 vote supermajority. The filibuster rule was specifically put in place so a narrow political majority could not ram through sweeping legislation with the minority party being impotent to stop it. It was to force the Senate to reach Compromise. There is a reason the Senate is called the "Senior body" and the supermajority requirement is a major part of that reason. This is by design and it's a major reason the Senate has for over a century been called the "World's Greatest Deliberative Body."
ReplyDeleteIt's by design. And it's a good design.
Buck, thanks for passing that along. I had not read it, nor have I studied Brown much.
ReplyDeletePragmatism is a stout suit in politics. My favorite President of my lifetime (probably ever) was a pragmatist. Conservative, yet realistic. But, their party (Republican) needs both factions (hard righties, and pragmatists) engaged in the battle if they will ever slow down the socialist train, IMHO.
Dadman, hopefully Brown's election will knock some sense in to the arrogant Eddie Haskel types in the Dem party, and put the brakes on the trainwreck. It could be a harbinger. I mean, I haven't seen the Dems win anything since Nov. 2009. And, this one just has to "leave a mark." Or so one would think...but we're not dealing with sane individuals here. That may likely work to the Republican's advantage if they've got enough sense to capitalize on it.
Goat, you wrote, "I think you need more hard liners when the party is in the minority because they will fight for their beliefs rather than sell out."
Yeah, I see that. And the truth is that when you're in the minority, it's just about ONLY the hard liners willing to step up to the plate. The other guys usually run pretty silent.
Maybe those Republicans will pull it together, and build on these wins. Time always tells...and it always tells the truth.
Cosmic, I understand that. I know the whys and wherefores of it.
ReplyDeleteBut, the point I was trying to make (maybe not too well) is that the "change the rules for my benefit" crowd was wrong. And, they would be clamoring to reverse it when it didn't suit them.
However, I will stick by my dislike of those rules. I will state again that those that elect morons should be subjected to the consequences of their choice. The pain would also impact the rest, but it would eventually cause an upheaval that would fix things.
The Senate can be referred to as a great "deliberative body" all it wants. But, I just see a bunch of blowhards, and idiots...with a few exceptions.
They are deal-makers, snake-oil salesmen, clueless skirt chasers, vapid airheads, America-haters, Marxists, and spineless wannabes. And, I haven't even gotten to Illinois, and New York...
The supermajority rules may be a good design. But, from where I'm viewing things, it hasn't seemed to stop much bad from happening, nor promote too much good.
And, I'm still not convinced that the 41% majority will stop health care deform. I guess we'll see.
Man, how bizarre is that? The 41% majority...
Andy, the supermajority has stopped many things in the Senate in my lifetime, unfortunately some of them I wish had happened. But on balance I think it has stopped this nation from rushing headlong into things without a clear mandate. As it just did (for now anyway) with nationalizing a large fraction of our economy. That's what it's for. In this case it worked. It is, in fact, a deliberate hedge against the inevitable population of the Senate with morons, idealogues, the corrupted and the just plain wrong.
ReplyDelete... just to clarify one point, I absolutely think if you are going to filibuster you should have to actually filibuster.
ReplyDelete