House of Eratosthenes

So the new Senate looks like this: If the two independents vote to invoke cloture with the democrats all the time, which seems likely, and the Republicans all hang together, which seems a whole lot less likely, the filibusters will hold 42-58. In other words, the democrat party is two votes shy of what would be needed to render all dissent irrelevant. One vote shy if Franken manages to “find” enough votes in Minnesota.

They’ve worked really hard to get those sixty seats.

I remain a staunch opponent of filibusters. But I think there is no intellectual dishonesty or inconsistency in entertaining one argument touted by the filibuster defenders, since I’ve always had respect for this argument if not for the process: What, exactly, do you think you’ll be able to pass with those sixty votes, that would be so hopelessly bottled up with only fifty-nine?

My suggestion to Republicans: Do not use the filibuster. Ever. The goal should be that the democrat party owns the 111th Congress, and every piece of news that takes place during the two years in which it sits. It’s theirs whether they like it or not.

You already know they won’t want to. There’s going to be some stuff so ugly that its own parents will look away…and then…it’ll be on. FaPoBuAd (“failed policies of the Bush administration”) will reign supreme, the verb “inherited” will be bandied about more often than the noun “Gravitas” was eight years ago when Bush and Cheney were first paired-up. We’ll hear about how Chosen One inherited this, that, and some other bad situation from George Bush — so often our ears will fall off.

Make it so that that’s all there is. Make that the only lifeline. Don’t give them a filibuster so they can say “we wanted to do X, but the Republicans filibustered.”

Except cutting funding to the troops. That would be as good a criteria as any, I suppose. Filibuster if it salvages something for the troops, otherwise, we do everything that can be done the democrat way, the democrat way. It’s The People. It’s what they said they wanted. Give the people what they want.

Since about the 1950’s, the ratio has been somewhere around four-to-one: Every day the federal government is obliged to do everything the hard-left democrat way, translates to four, five or six days the democrats stay out of power once the honeymoon is over. There are exceptions…like Watergate. But overall it holds up. And if you ignore the Great Depression, this formula is maintained clear back to the Civil War.

We just voted to get drunk and screw. There’s one hell of a hangover, pregnancy and venereal disease waiting for us. We are alcoholics, and within my lifetime we’ll probably fall off the wagon yet again — but if the hangover is bad enough, it’ll probably be quite awhile. Quite awhile. And who knows, maybe if we wake up soaked in urine, with a penis drawn on our face with a permanent magic marker, we’ll finally start the twelve-step program we should’ve started in 1940, and get rid of the democrat party for good. We’re America. We deserve better “loyal opposition” than this, and we damn sure deserve better leadership. They’re just a lawyer-party at this point; nothing more and nothing less.

But for the next two years, we say we want them in charge because we’re still addicts, so bring ’em on.

Yeah, that’s why bartenders have signs that say something about refusing service. Too bad this isn’t a bar.

I’m sorry, it is to laugh. After all the “real conservatives” such as yourself have filibustered the Republican party, giving control of Congress to the Democrats in 06, now you’re ready to sit on the sidelines? Are “real conservatives” so cowardly they can’t face the enemy on the battlefield, on betray their allies? Or do you think that leaving the game, not even taking the ball with you, will show everyone how wrong they were, and they will make you team captain and give you a pony? Can you give me an example of the latter ever happening? Ever? Sir, we have disagreed in the past, but I would never have put you in the Wormtongue role.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 12/04/2008 @ 12:29
…do you think that leaving the game, not even taking the ball with you, will show everyone how wrong they were, and they will make you team captain and give you a pony? Can you give me an example of the latter ever happening? Ever?

No pony yet. But this is unfolding so much like a carbon-copy reprinting of 1993-94 you’d have to be a blind man not to see it, and I think even a blind man could see it. Travelgate, Economic Stimulus, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Hillarycare, and a spate of poorly-advised nominees contributed to a rout in the ’94 midterms. Which, in turn, led to a procession of Republican congresses (104th, 105th, 106th) putting the brakes on Clinton’s most radical ideas…which, unnoticed to everyone at the time, had slowed down to a trickle. With each election cycle the public saw less and less of a need for a Republican counterweight and saw Newt’s revolution as more a hindrance than a help. This was reflected in the makeup of the House of Representatives, which lost a few GOP seats each time right up until Newt resigned. Not a glorious hour for either party.

I don’t think you want to start inspecting history to make your point here, Robert. The chronicles are abundantly clear: People are enamored with liberalism, right up until they get it.
- mkfreeberg | 12/04/2008 @ 13:04
I very much want to inspect history here. I seem to remember more of it then you. It’s very true that people are enamored with liberalism, right up until the liberals start pushing programs onto the public. It’s also true that the Republicans have a awful track record when it comes to getting rid of said programs. The founders knew and wrote about determined minorities (that’s my paycheck! I need this program to feed my children!) pushing their will on an indifferent majority (I sure would like my taxes to be lower. What, they’re getting rid of the police? Never mind….).
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 12/04/2008 @ 13:27
Since you seem to remember more of history than I do, when did conservatives ever convince a broad cross section of America, even for a moment or two, of the liabilities of liberalism through words alone?

The drunk-analogy fits better and better, the more I look at it. Some people just can’t haul their drunk asses off to Al-Anon until they’ve dealt with the consequences a few times. Listing the reasons why they shouldn’t reach for the bottle, just won’t do the trick. Setting a quota of one shot or one beer for the evening (which is what McCain’s nomination was all about, right?) really won’t work. They gotta wake up with hangovers. Painful ones. Many times. In strange cities, under park benches, with sore butts and an orangutan staring longingly at them, batting its eyelashes. Until something like that, they don’t get help. That’s where we’re at.
- mkfreeberg | 12/04/2008 @ 13:39
OK, Morgan… I sense a lil disconnect, as well. You were seriously down on McCain in the past for the Gang of 14 episode, which was all about Democrat use of the filibuster and the so-called Republican “nuclear option.” Or perhaps you were down on the Gang because they didn’t want the rules changed, i.e., eliminate the filibuster?

I see the filibuster as a legislative weapon of last resort, and I approve. OTOH, the Dems used it to slow-roll or, in a lot of cases, prevent Dubya’s judicial nominees to be confirmed. Cooler heads prevailed back in 2005/2006… and the filibuster was preserved. I’m glad it was.
- Buck | 12/04/2008 @ 17:07
I’m anti-confusion, anti-wishy-washy. We have a lot of stupid ideas that are kept alive and kicking, well beyond the expiration date involved, by never quite being implemented all the way — or in such a way that it becomes indisputable that the resulting wreckage is owned by the stupid idea. On the other hand, we have this massive graveyard of stupid ideas that were implemented in such a way, and it becomes impossible to deny these were the wrong things to do. Example: “Let’s lean on the throttle and get RMS Titanic to New York a couple days ahead of schedule.” That wasn’t done with a filibuster. “Let’s charge those Indians and make sure history remembers the name George A. Custer.” That wasn’t done with a filibuster either.

This is the idea-graveyard where liberalism belongs, gentlemen. But it never quite gets buried there. When the ideas all turn to crap and it’s time to point fingers, there’s always some Republican-ness somewhere that can take the fall. Liberalism has become very much like the seven-year-old threatening, at least once a week, to run away from home — never having been told “okay, go right ahead.’ That’s why I’m anti-filibuster. No matter who wields it or what it’s bottling up, it’s always a matter of opinion whether things succeeded/failed because of the filibuster, or in spite of it. It ends up being just another piece of machinery that enables politicians to huff & puff, and affix blame to someone else. And no matter what letter comes after their names, I don’t think any of ’em need help doing that. They need help accepting responsibility…saying “this bad thing that just happened, that’s because of that dumb thing I did.” Like grown-ups. Yeah, in the right set of circumstances I do think that’s possible. Even for democrats.
- mkfreeberg | 12/04/2008 @ 17:24
I understand and appreciate your point, Morgan – both the original article you wrote and in your follow-up comments.

That said, I noticed you allow the GOP to reach for that ol’ filibuster if the lefties try to cut off funding for the miltary. Well and good…but I’d also like to see them use it to stop the Democrats from “overhauling” (read: ruining) our healthcare system via some massive socialization package, or worse, taking all the guns away like they’ve spent years trying to do. I’m especially concerned that with the recent Heller v DC ruling in the Supreme Court, they’ll try to pull some kind of end-run around our 2nd Amendment rights – eg ban all gun sales within five miles of a school…or some other such nonsense than amount to a de facto ban on firearms sales, possession, or use.

If it takes a filibuster to stop that nonsense, so be it. They certainly had no qualms about deploying it against Bush’s highly-qualified judicial nominees prior to the 2006 takeover. Why should we?
- cylarz | 12/05/2008 @ 01:31

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

About That SupermajorityThursday, December 4th, 2008

About That Supermajority
Thursday, December 4th, 2008