Comments on: NY Times Reconsiders Filibuster

By: steve miller

steve miller — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 05:08:52 +0000

I’m not exactly clear, but I think the Senate Rules require a 2/3 vote to amend cloture, which is currently at 3/5 of the Senate.

It’s moot, because the NYT finds it convenient to disregard the Senate rules at this point in time, and surely Specter, Snowe, and Collins will vote to end it, along with 6 other willing accomplices.

It’s for the children.

By: Kevin Murphy

Kevin Murphy — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:38:32 +0000

Ooops. I guess the “Edward” should have been a clue. Fixed.

By: Mike Lion

Mike Lion — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:27:15 +0000

A great post. But Jean Smith is not a “she.” He’s a man.

By: redc1c4

redc1c4 — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:29:02 +0000

and remember: “Dissent is the highest form of racism.”

By: Patterico

Patterico — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 04:25:05 +0000

This post was linked at Powerline, Kevin. I think that's the first big link this blog has gotten. Nicely done.

By: Amphipolis

Amphipolis — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:56:45 +0000

Notice how they never mention that the deep policy divisions between the parties today are what make virtually every issue into a filibuster issue. They don’t mention the stakes, the seriousness of the conflict. And they suddenly are so very fond of majority rule.

The Senate will adjust cloture to 57 or 58 votes at the first good opportunity, as I predicted. The Media is preparing the ground. I hope the Republicans are prepared to immediately walk out in protest. They will only have one shot.

By: AD - RtR/OS

AD - RtR/OS — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:02:27 +0000

Republicans fought FOR slavery???
Who knew?

By: carlitos

carlitos — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:58:40 +0000

The money quote was in their 2005 article:

A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the “nuclear option” in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton’s early agenda. But we were still wrong.

So, were they wrong in 1995 AND 2009, but not in 2005? Or were they wrong about being wrong in 2005, but correct in 1995 and 2009?

1995 – Bad Republicans filibustering Clinton – NY Times against filibuster.
2005 – Good Democrats filibustering Republican judges – NY Times for filibuster.
2009 – Bad Republicans may filibuster some of Obama programs – just like they fought to keep slavery! – NY Times against filibuster.

Oh, that liberal media.

By: aunursa

aunursa — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:39:07 +0000

Ahh, here it is… Kerry vs Kerry

Should have one for NY Times vs NY Times…

By: aunursa

aunursa — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:15:35 +0000

Reminds me of the cartoon during the 2004 election. Bush and Kerry are in the boxing ring. Bush is relaxing against the ropes as Kerry is split in two, both Kerries knocking each other out.