William Greider: Stop Senator No

[marmar]

from The Nation:



Stop Senator No
Comment
By William Greider

December 10, 2008


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)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/greider?rel=hp_picks

[BlueManDude]

1. Change Senator Reid first.

[marmar]

2. You'll get no argument from me......

We need something other than a potted plant for Senate Majority Leader.

[kenny blankenship]

3. "postpartisan politics"

BWAH!!!
That's what the Repukes had planned for us after they stuck all elected Democrats in Gitmo: a joyous, patriotic, unified postpartisan politics by way of One Party Government. That's the closest we'll ever come, hopefully in our lifetimes, to any "postpartisan" politics.

[gratuitous]

4. Democrats do indeed want to keep the filibuster

For the exact reason Greider says, "a convenient way to avoid taking responsibility." Gotta keep the powder dry, you know. Someday, in the far-off future, the Senate Democrats might descry a battle worth fighting.