Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Ed Schultz sounds like an idiot right now... [View all]
...and "co-host" John Nichols isn't setting him straight!
Ed's saying that he disagrees with Harry Reid and that Reid should not change the filibuster rules: leave them as they are. OK, that's his opinion, it's just one that I disagree with. But the problem with his argument is that he thinks it's based on facts, when in fact, he's merely regurgitating conventional wisdom about the history of the filibuster. This shit is so readily available, you just have to be intellectually lazy not to research it.
1. Schultz: The filibuster was specifically designed to protect the voice of the minority.
FALSE: Political scientist Sarah Binder writes that the filibuster was a "happy accident" that wasn't even discovered for years:
"In 1805, Aaron Burr has just killed Alexander Hamilton. He comes back to the Senate and gives his farewell address. Burr basically says that you are a great body. You are conscientious and wise, you do not give in to the whims of passion. But your rules are a mess. And he goes through the rulebook pointing out duplicates and things that are unclear."
"Among his suggestions was to drop the previous question motion. And they pretty much just take Burr's advice. And once it's gone, it takes some time for leaders to realize that they can't cut off debate anymore. But the striking part to me was that we say the Senate developed the filibuster to protect minorities and the right to debate. That's hogwash! It's a mistake. Believe me, I would've loved to find the smoking gun where the Senate decides to create a deliberative body. But it takes years before anyone figures out that the filibuster has just been created."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/how_the_filibuster_was_invente.html
2. Schultz: It's worked this way for generations, don't change it now.
FALSE: It's been change several times over the years, but most recently, and most germane to today's debate, it was changed in 2003 when the "phantom filibuster" was introduced. Many believe that this is a rule change that Reid is considering. Ed says, no, leave it as it's been for "generations."
As for his opinion, he believes that Americans have it all figured out and that the Republicans will fall off the face of the earth in the next two election cycles. So "Democratic" of him: Expect the best case scenario and live to regret not striking when you had the chance.
What happened to the tough guy?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
29 replies, 4739 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (14)
ReplyReply to this post
29 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
That's fine, but he shouldn't sound like an ignoramus, should he? And...
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
Nov 2012
#5
I love Ed. It just pisses me off when he thinks he has the facts, but doesn't.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
Nov 2012
#16
It highlights who is obstructing. If the senate passes a reasonable piece of legislation but the
still_one
Nov 2012
#10
Senate also confirms Judges (including Supreme Court) and Cabinet Members. And they have used
ToxMarz
Nov 2012
#19
People may not realize but the filibuster was used to maintain slavery in this country for years.
still_one
Nov 2012
#7
I know that the Ezra Klein replacement story was unsubstantiated, but I now understand why it was
Liberal_Stalwart71
Nov 2012
#17
You confuse the Super Majority Rule with the Filibuster. As long as democrats are close to
bluestate10
Nov 2012
#26
The Filibuster should stay. The Super Majority Rule for a vote should be gotten rid of. nt
bluestate10
Nov 2012
#25
Ed's head is made of bricks. It's nice to have him on our side, but don't let him do our thinking.
MjolnirTime
Nov 2012
#28