Skip to main content

View Diary: Dick Durbin speaks of toothless, watered down filibuster reform (163 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I just don't get it (15+ / 0-)

    Isn't Durbin seen as an ally of Obama in the senate? Isn't Obama leaning on these people? Doesn't he want them to approve his nominees?

    They are PATHETIC if this is all they do.

    An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

    by mightymouse on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 04:35:21 AM PST

    •  How the "cliff" situation gets resolved (5+ / 0-)

      will tell us all we need to know about whether the fighting populist that Obama ran as this time was for show or for real. With talk about how a deal is in the works this soon making the rounds, I suspect that it was mostly for show. The sooner they reach a deal, the worse it is likely to be. The only way to get a good deal is to first break the Repubs, and that can't have happened this quickly.

      Thing is, if major or really any cuts to social programs are part of the deal, it will lose Dems the midterms--and perhaps deservedly so.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 06:40:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  filibuster issue is outside the "populist" thing (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, shaharazade

        even if Obama will disappoint on the fiscal curb, he still should want his nominees approved.

        it's baffling.

        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

        by mightymouse on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:34:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, it isn't (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          divineorder, shaharazade, mightymouse

          Alllowing a minority of senators eleced by a minority of voters representing mostly smaller states to obstruct popular legislation is inherently anti-populist.

          So if Obama allows either situation to be resolved in a manner that is more accomodating than is called for or necessary, it's a sure sign that he has not turned into the fighter (or even shrewd strategist) that we hoped he had, more interested in seeming to be "bipartisan" and cutting deals than in doing right.

          But we won't know that for another month or two.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:59:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I thought you were discussing the Constitution (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gosoxataboy
            Alllowing a minority of senators eleced by a minority of voters representing mostly smaller states to obstruct popular legislation is inherently anti-populist.
            As Andgarden addressed in a thread above the US Constitution allows this exact situation. Look at the red states and look at the populations of most of those states. ID, UT, WY, MO, ND. SD. KS, AR, OK, NE, MS, KY and SC ... that's 26% of the Senate representing just under 31 million Americans or 10% of the population. Of course the GOP does not hold all 26 Senate seats in these states, but they dominate the numbers.

            This means about 90% of America has only 3/4 of the Senate available to represent them. These minority, overwhelmingly pro-GOP small population states have incredibly disproportionate power.

            This is not a matter of Mister Obama's innermost motivations it is a matter of math. Like it or not the US Constitution establishes a system that is decidedly not condusive to populist politics. Like it or not, progressive leaders have to operate in a system in which 25% of the vote is already stacked against them. Those are strong headwinds.

            •  Sounds like an excuse (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kovie, Quicklund

              Just because one thing - the composition of the Senate - is inherently undemocratic, it doesn't follow that everything has to be.

              An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

              by mightymouse on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:16:25 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am not excusing anything (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gosoxataboy

                I am pointing out certain flaws in the system created by our Constitution. Well, flaws if you are a 2012 Democrat and an ace up your sleeve if you are a 2012 Republican.

                There is nothing wrong with going through life with open eyes and a well-worn calculator.

                •  All sorts of ways to minimize the flaws (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Quicklund

                  in that moldy old document hacked together by dead white rich men back when over half the country had slaves, not all of which require amendments or even laws. For all the shit he unfairly gets from some lefties for supposedly wanting the US to be ruled by a monarch (which he did, but didn't aggressively advocate for and wisely abandoned), of all the founders I think that Hamilton, the one true outsider, had the best vision for the US political system. No states, one set of laws, and slavery to be ended soon after ratification.

                  "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                  by kovie on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:31:44 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Another reason Republicans hate the French? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mightymouse

                    I admit to being surprized and even puzzled when I recently learned France does not have any official regional governments. It's all a federal system. Sure, they have provinces and regions but they are more cultural divisions not political ones.

                    I have to admit my brain ground to a halt at first. "How can that work?" was my American response. I got over it quickly but ingrained impression run deep.

                    I miles away from approaching expert on the Founding Fathers, but Hamilton does seem to be the biggest outside the box thinker. But perhaps one of the worst practical politicians. Well, every time needs someone to be there living ahead of it.

                    •  Actually, he was an amazingly good politician (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Quicklund

                      in that he got most of his major reforms passed by a hostile congress, by being a shrewd, reality-based negotiator and advocate. But Jefferson eventually caught up and out-maneuvered him, helped by Hamilton's own indiscretions.

                      Paine was probably even more radical than Hamilton, but had no real power or patron, unlike Hamilton, and wasn't a practical person, dying in poverty and in disrepute. Of course, he didn't let himself get shot by a scoundrel.

                      And yes, France is based on centralized administration, having "departments" instead of states that all report back to Paris. Efficient and effective in some ways, not so much in others. But had it adopted the American political system, it would likely have been ripped apart by civil war. It almost was, as it is.

                      Then again, Louisiana is modeled on the French system. Not exactly a poster child for good governance. So take that as some sort of lesson.

                      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                      by kovie on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:11:43 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  we know these flaws pretty well by this point (0+ / 0-)

                  the topic here is filibuster, which is NOT in the constitution and is changeable.

                  An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

                  by mightymouse on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:50:05 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  My point exactly (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mightymouse, Quicklund

                The founders were universally anti-democratic. Doesn't mean we have to be.

                "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                by kovie on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:26:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  The filibuster is nowhere mentioned (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Quicklund, mightymouse

              in the constitution, even though it allows "a minority of senators...to obstruct popular legislation", whether they were elected by a majority or minority of voters. I intentionally conflated a number of problems with our political system, only some of which are, admitedly and regretably, constitutionally mandated.

              To make the house and senate more truly democratic we would of course require much more substantial reform than filibuster reform. It would require major laws if not amendments, and that's not happening any time soon. But we have a chance to do at least filibuster reform, and it would be a crime if we didn't.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:16:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  HELLO (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      For those who haven't been paying attention, this week's kabuki theater puts the lie to the Democrats' 2012 campaign.  But the signs have been there for years already.

      Shirley Chisholm was right. Our Republic is in deep trouble.

      by Big River Bandido on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:21:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site