Stop Senator No

[babylonsister]

Stop Senator No
By William Greider

This article appeared in the December 29, 2008 edition of The Nation.
December 10, 2008


If the Democratic Party intends to get serious about governing, it can start by disabling the Republican filibuster that gives the minority party in the Senate a virtual veto over anything it wants to kill. The chatter in Washington assumes that since Democrats failed to gain a sixty-seat majority, there's nothing they can do. But that's not true. Democrats can change the rules and remove a malignant obstacle from the path of our new president. Given the emergency conditions facing the nation, why should Mitch McConnell and his right-wing colleagues get to decide what the Senate may vote on?

This proposition disturbs the happy talk about the "postpartisan" politics Barack Obama has inspired. But let's get real. McConnell is making nice for the moment, having survived his re-election scare in Kentucky. But he will use the filibuster to stymie the new Democratic administration whenever it looks to him like a political opportunity for Republicans. Thanks mainly to McConnell, the 110th Congress of 2007-08 set a new record--138 cloture motions to limit debate and head off filibusters. That is double the level of ten years ago. Who really believes McConnell will voluntarily give up his starring role as Senator No?

Last year, Democrats had a fifty-one-vote majority, but majority leader Harry Reid lamented their inability to overcome the minority. "The problem we have is that we don't have many moderate Republicans," Reid explained. In the new Congress there will be even fewer. Elections and retirements have left the surviving GOP caucus even more extreme in its ideology. The threat of a filibuster is its lever of power.

Democrats, on the other hand, have lost their last excuse for inaction. For years, they have blamed Bush's veto or the narrowly divided Senate for their weakness. Both are kaput. Now the Dems have the ability to step up and change the situation. But will they have the courage? Many of them like to hide behind Senate tradition, claiming it would be inappropriate to alter the rules. Nonsense. If Democrats allow the sixty-vote filibuster to survive, it is because they want to keep it as a convenient way to avoid taking responsibility.

more...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/greider

[Mugweed]

1. What about an Executive Order?

Remember the "nuclear option" that Hot-tub Tom always threatened? What if there was an Executive Order from Obama eliminating the filibuster...with an expiration date that coincides with the next seating of elected officials? What's the harm? If the reich-wing complains, we could just play endless recorded video and audio of the Republic party threatening it, asking why there was no outrage then.

[tritsofme]

4. You don't seem to know what an executive order is.

apparently.

[Mugweed]

6. You're correct

They've been abused so much for the last 8 years that I thought we could use them to make anything legitimate. Man, I need to retake a civics class!

[TheWraith]

2. " This article appeared in the December 29, 2008 edition of The Nation."

Either they've got a time machine, or they mean it WILL appear.

[babylonsister]

5. The Nation always does that; it will appear. I guess. I find the print

too small for my aging eyes.

[Captain Hilts]

3. I've actually met him a couple of times. Looks like Howdy Doody. What a bastard. nt