Skip to main content

View Diary: President Obama endorses filibuster reform (212 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't know. (0+ / 0-)

    But that's only your nitty gritty point. It's not mine.

    The time to remove the filibuster was 2008. But as you may have noticed, it is no longer 2008. And if the filibuster was antiquated two years ago, it's surely only more antiquated now. I'm not sure that's actually debatable, time being linear and all. You could make a different argument about its propriety, to be sure. But not the one about the rule being antiquated.

    Besides, it's well worth keeping in mind that reforming the filibuster isn't necessarily the same thing as eliminating it. And you'll no doubt notice that the president's discussion centered mostly on reforming the way it works as opposed to simply eliminating it.

    •  Poor timing in politics (0+ / 0-)

      Is everything. Just like comedy.   I'd wait until the tail end if a GOP session rather than the beginning of one  before scrapping it. I'm into unfair advatages. I am not into disadvantaging my own side.

      There were good times in 2006 to scrap it too.  Perhaps in 1992 as well. It's all about timing. You strike me as naive.  

      Read My New Book: The Jolly campaigns and High Times of Banastre Tarlton Esq.

      by Salo on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 01:32:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The tail end doesn't help you. (0+ / 0-)

        It's the beginning that matters.

        And if you wait until the beginning of a Congress with a new Democratic majority, the attack will be "power grab!"

        Which, to no one's surprise, is the exact same attack that'll be made if you wait until the beginning of a Congress with an old Democratic majority.

        Were there good times in 2006 to scrap it? Like that time when there was a Democratic majority willing to do it? Oh yeah, there wasn't any Democratic majority in 2006. Right. Perhaps you mean 2007? Or in 1992, when there were less than half the number of filibusters going on that there are today? I'm not sure the cry was there, this being a timing thing and all.

        I don't know what you were hoping for with the "naive" remark, but let's put it this way: I've seen your game today, and I'm unfazed by seeing you grasp at that straw. The bottom line is that the Senators who'll make the actual decision are talking about doing it now, when Mr. Naive is talking about it, and never had a word to say about it when Mr. Sophistication says, in his 20/20 hindsight, that they should have been doing it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site