If I’m being charitable, I’ll just assume the White House is floating a trial balloon in order to make the eventual Republican rejection look even worse. AKA “we even offered to cut social security!” But if there’s any reality to this proposal, I hope that at the very least a senator like Bernie Sanders and the few remaining Senate Dems who aren’t spineless or bought off will filibuster.Well, you know, I'm sure Oliver's a clever writer, but he might study the rules of the Senate a bit before making proposals like this. Senate rules allow opportunities for the minority party to slow down legislative action, and with the filibuster, the possibility of talking a bill to death. While in principle any member can filibuster, the fact is only the minority party has reason to do so, for it has no agenda setting power within the chamber, and the minority can't prevail on a simple up-or-down vote. Hence, by allowing any member to take the floor to debate a bill, legislators in the minority seize the opportunity the tie up the Senate until the bill is either changed or withdrawn. The Democrats are currently in the majority, and won't need to filibuster. Majority Leader Harry Reid, if he's opposed, simply won't introduce legislation to cut Social Security. And even if Senator Bernie Sanders opposed a Democrat bill on Social Security reform, he caucuses with the Democrats (although he's a socialist) and he'd be in no position to oppose the majority.
So, sorry Oliver. We all make mistakes blogging now and then, but your motto cries out for brutal mockery.
5 comments:
Koolaid is a helluva drug and Ollie Obot snorts it straight from the package.
Wasn't the point of his post that a Democrat has to be willing to stand up to the Democratic leadership if they cave to the Republicans? Giving all the reasons why they might not is pointless; his post was an encouragement to do so in spite of those reasons.
You seem to think that being a part of the Democratic caucus prohibits opposing a Democratic bill. It does nothing of the sort. Obviously it would be politically risky for anyone to filibuster their own party's bill - that was exactly what Willis was acknowledging in suggesting that the least conservative member of the Democratic caucus might have to be willing to do so.
Your self-congratulatory primer on Senate procedure is irrelevant; obviously Willis knows everything you have struggled so hard to learn. He also knows that there is no procedural barrier to blocking a bill from one's own party - only barriers of tradition and politics. You seem to have confused these, which likely explains your inability to understand the strategy Willis is suggesting.
But please, read more, think more, talk less. For your own good.
Li'l Ollie is a lodestone for stupid. He's just too dumb to realize it.
Willis used to have a photo attached to his blog, which I no longer bother to visit. I found long ago that even among the clueless-cretin far end of the rad Demonrat spectrum of silliness. Oliver is a special case.
He has actually been completely dead to anything except echoing other stuff he read on Kos or the Washington Monthly or other completely tendentious twaddle.
Not even smart enough to quote Krugman, the oracle of phony intelligentsia poseurs. My guess is that even after reading your comment about rules of the Senate, he doesn't realize that no majority Senator except perhaps Wayne Morse or another such sui generis maverick has ever filibustered---and my bet is that he still can't figure out why...!!!
Thanks for commenting, Dave. Good to hear from you.
Post a Comment