Skip to main content

View Diary: Two freshmen Democrats wobbly now on the talking filibuster (122 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Gentlemen's Agreement possible w/ Filbuster use? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shenderson

    Changing the filibuster rules would be a kind of big deal philosophically, I think most agree. Although the GOP has used it in a very ungentlemanly manner of late I also think most would agree.

    I wonder though, if anyone thinks that the there is a connection between the unanimous consent approval of all of those POTUS appointments earlier this week and the toned down severity of Democrat reform intentions for Filibuster?

    Or were those confirms a different side deal for the fiscal cliff? (My instinct is it was filibuster side deal between Reid and McConnell not a Fiscal Dicks thing. Maybe a deal for the Rice withdrawal though? anyone know?)

    The confirmation process and the filibuster have both been nuclear wastelands (even more than the past twenty years) since we have POTUS Obama and Democrat Senate...

    Also, not to draw tangents everywhere, but Boehner had a kind of "night of long knives" with the Tea Party Committee assignments two weeks or so ago.  

    Does this all suggest there has there been a shift in the Sin to Win un-civility trend of the GOP as a result of what should in a rational world really be a huge and shocking demographic/philosophical electoral wake-up call?

    Ride for the High Country

    by The Ex Cowboy on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 01:39:17 PM PST

    •  Lawrence O'Donnell said that the appointments (19+ / 0-)

      were a trade for McConnell getting to make his deal with Joe Biden rather than Harry Reid.  That made him look tough as a stand-up guy fighting so hard that Harry Reid couldn't get him to back down and support the tax increase and that it took getting the VP to do the negotiating.  That way McConnell would be able to say he beat Reid.  And Reid accepted that because he didn't have the massive ego that would have insisted that Reid be the one to win over McConnell and in return, McConnell made sure no Republican holds were placed on any of the nominees.

      At least that was LO'D's explanation and it makes sense.

      •  Harry's a big man. (7+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        leema, DSPS owl, grrr, elwior, Puddytat, ColoTim, Jorybu

        This isn't the first one he's taken for the team.  Harry Truman once observed that you could accomplish anything in Washington if you didn't care who got the credit.

      •  That fits current GOP realpolitik .... (0+ / 0-)

        Why would McD take a one-round personal loss for the team when he can get the team to take a bonecrushing knockout for his personal "permanent campaign"?

        ..Sacrifice a significant long term loss to the party's evaporating mojo - in exchange for some personal ego bounce that he won't actually be able to capitalize on during his next cycle - because they still only know how to make three word commercials and this whole season will require Jesuit level explaining for the GOP to survive in '16

        Biden gets to wear the gloves on exactly day three of the next POTUS dust-up (while Hillary is in some kind of coma in a non disclosed location); The Koch brothers taxes go up for precisely the very first time in their centurys' long science-extended lives; America sees the dieing squeal from a road-killed party hit by it's own shit-train of personal egomania; what did I miss?

        Was Big bird or a hurricane or rape involved again?

        Or am I wrong about this being the most surprising political collapse since LBJ stole three planeloads of W.H. furniture and ran for the Mexican border at night?

        The GOP, like the Phoenix Suns, just can't learn that the only thing that matters is making sure the Point Guard from Chicago never, ever gets the ball with 11 seconds on the clock in game seven. And so what if he throws an assist once in a while - instead of taking the shot himself?

        His team still gets the ring.

        Ride for the High Country

        by The Ex Cowboy on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:11:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Those appointments were small ball, (14+ / 0-)

      for the most part. For instance, there were two tax court appointments, but no other judges.

    •  "Gentlemen's Agreement?" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybersaur

      With this GOP?  Really?

      Please don't be so naive.

      Democratic Leaders must be very clear they stand with the working class of our country. Democrats must hold the line in demanding that deficit reduction is done fairly -- not on the backs of the elderly, the sick, children and the poor.

      by Betty Pinson on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:25:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know. I DO know... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      apimomfan2

      That these backroom negotiations and deals undermine our Democracy. When a small group of corporate-funded suits work out deals for the entire country, you can be sure the interests of the majority of the American people are not priority number one.

    •  Given that the Republican Party is down to (0+ / 0-)

      about 3 gentlemen/ladies in both Houses combined, gentlemen's agreements seem an improbably solution to our problems.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:38:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site