This is not confusion on behalf of the Republicans this is a very deliberate tactic of obfuscation.
The lesson should have been learnt by Harry Reid already. The Republicans are better at playing Parliamentary games. Bush governed the way he wanted even without a majority in the House and Senate. They knew what they were doing and knew what they wanted.
For every major bill that has gone the Senate, individual Conservadems have been able to blackmail the Democratic Party leadership because they knew that the Republican Party would vote in lock step. This gave each of them their own personal veto. The likes of Lieberman, Bayh, Lincoln and Nelson have acted no differently to Bunning. Only they did it on almost every major issue. They gave a lie to a 60 vote Democratic Congress that the ordinary voter would never understand and they would find difficult to forgive.
Scott Brown or not individual Democratic Senators had their own personal individual veto that they could use to block legislation. Without fear of reprisal. His election cost them that individual veto. In addition, the use of reconciliation gets rid of the power of individual Senators to effectively blackmail the Democratic Senate Caucus. The ironic thing is that may save the jobs of the blackmailers if reconciliation gets used more between now and November.
Voter anger is not surprising. Why when the Democratic Party had a veto proof majority couldn't they pass major issues in the Senate? Why isn't health care done and dusted and why aren't jobs back firmly on the agenda?
The Republican Party will not make the same mistake. If they win, they will not use reconciliation. The talk of the nuclear option is to soften the public up. They will use it. They will take the nuclear option which is abolition of the filibuster.
Redstate makes it clear, without any pause for thought about the hypocrisy of their position
http://www.redstate.com/spiral/2010/02/06/junk-the-filibuster-but-only-once-the-gop-wins-the-majority-back/Some say that majority rule is mob rule and that the minority must be able to prevent the majority from abusing power. But there is only one thing worse that rule by the majority and that is rule by the minority. Also, there are sufficient checks and balances in the US Constitution that exist even in the absence of a 60 vote cloture requirement. Congress has two legislative chambers. The President has a veto power. The judicial branch is an independent branch of government. All of these features, built directly into the US Constitution, represent checks and balances. If conservatives believe that the 60 vote cloture requirement is an important check and balance against majority rule, they should (a) consider proposing such as a Constitutional Amendment and (b) should consider how difficult it might be to reform Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid if 60 Senate votes are required, in addition to a majority of the US House and a Presidential signature. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will turn the United States into a socialist country unless these programs are reformed. Do we really want 41 Senate Democrats to be able to block that reform? Do we really want 41 Senate Democrats to be able to defeat conservative judicial nominees?
My answer is no.
The Republicans will have no fear of properly going nuclear and the Senate Democratic Leadership will only be able to stare in shame. Calling out their hypocrisy will not stop them.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
