Senate The US Politics discussion

If Reid pushes the button on the nuclear option, Republicans will rue the consequences more than ever of allowing him to win re-election. He had no business winning in 2010, yet he won decisively. The louder the squawking from McConnell, the more realistic and likely I think it is that Reid will make it happen. McConnell is powerless to stop it, and he knows that it's far from certain that Republicans will choose enough electable candidates for the Senate to win it back in 2014.

 

Context, Josh? Otherwise I'm sitting here quaking in fear that I will die a fiery nuclear death, and that Harry Reid will be to blame.

EDIT: Nvm, found a link. This juxtaposition of McConnel's is priceless: "Calling Reid's frustration a "phony, manufactured crisis," the Republican leader suggested that such a change would mark the "end of the Senate."

 

Would you really be surprised by that turn of events, though?

 

Oh not even remotely.

 

Well it's their own fault for choosing Sharron Angle as their candidate to run against Reid.

 

Elizabeth Warren to bring back Glass-Steagall

This is that thingy do that kept investment banks and commcercial banks separate. It was removed in 1999 and I forget which Dem said it but he said that in 10 years they will ask themselves what they were thinking. And of course everything crashed in 2008-2009 and our money was used to bail them out.

 

I still think its short-sighted. The Democrats are going to be in the minority in the Senate again someday, and at some point we will have another Republican president. I'd like to think that they would be able to filibuster some of that president's appointees, especially for the Supreme Court.

 

Then so be it. Nothing is getting done right now, and the Republicans' obstruction extends to virtually everything. As Kevin Drum wrote yesterday, this has the effect of reducing their leverage. People need to be confirmed and bills need to be passed.

 

Critically, though, the new change only allows a 51-vote threshold for executive branch nominations, not judicial appointments or laws.

It's true that the Republicans could move towards this as a retaliatory measure next time they are in office. But this doesn't really make any sense. There's nothing demanding that they change rules simply because the Democrats have done so.

Most importantly, though, look at the behavior of the Republican caucuses over the last 9 years. Even without precedent or parallel, they've been happily to radically alter the way Congress operates to maximize their agenda (eg the debt limit fight). In light of this, is there any assurance they wouldn't erode the filibuster next time they were in power anyway? They stopped behaving like a normal American political party some time ago, so I don't know that one should calibrate his or her actions as if they are.

 

Interesting points. I didn't realize it only was effective for executive nominees.

 

So, Janet Napolitano is stepping down to run the University of California.

There is talk that Susan Collins of Maine would be a logical choice... as well as opening up another GOP Senate seat that the Democrats would be sure to win.

 

There's a great comment on an article at The Atlantic about the GOP's debt ceiling "plan."

Obama is not up for re-election again. He can say "no" and won't have to face voters about it. One of the biggest problems with being so extreme is that you take away much of your leverage in the process, as I alluded to before. If Obama doesn't go along with the Republican "plan," the debt ceiling doesn't get raised, and I think the GOP would be blamed by a majority of the public. Since they've already obstructed him on virtually everything, there's not much they can realistically offer. Are they suddenly going to get more reasonable? I don't think so. There's a large number of true believers in the House GOP caucus, and they want nothing less than total capitulation from the President and Democrats in general.

They're not going to get it.

 

This in a nutshell.

 

Politicians? Corruption? Yeah, this goes here.

Photo radar cameras...

Denver. State Legislators do not get traffic tickets, instead they get sent to random citizens.

 

Ah, my tax dollars at work.

 

I don't see how it's corruption. If the flaw was inherent in how the automated system was designed, how are you concluding it was some grand, sinister conspiracy? Couldn't it just be, you know, a mistake?

 

It probably is just an oversight in the way the DMV handles things, but it's a rather spectacular one.

 

If it actually get sfixed then this is a mountain out of a molehill. However, 6 speeding tickets in one year gives me a serious doubt over the matter. And "Paying the ticket for her"??? No, it was not her ticket to be paid for in the first place, it's yours.

 

The thing is that campaigns don't happen in a vacuum-- candidates have to speak, and when people speak, their words get recorded by other people. That's where Republicans in particular had problems in 2010 and 2012. I'm sure Silver is on solid ground, but I'm also sure he would have marked Harry Reid as a dead senator walking in 2010.

Just a thought.

 

I think everybody had Harry Reid as a goner in 2010 before Sharron Angle won the GOP nomination for his seat. And clearly certain states (and the Presidential race) learned nothing from 2010 when it came to the 2012 elections. (Linda McMahon in Conn. anyone?)

Speaking of the GOP, Dick Cheney's daughter Liz (not the gay one) is running in the Republican Senate primary in Wisconsin.

 

Health plan costs for NY set to decrease by 50%

Damn you, Omaba and your evil...oh wait.