...says what?Critics say 'Scorched Earth' threat over filibuster shows McConnell 'getting scared'https://t.co/wXIVe81pcV
— Raw Story (@RawStory) March 16, 2021
When McConnell had control of the Senate, he was a "super-genius" who played the chamber like a harp. Except I'm old enough to remember Lions of the Senate like LBJ. McConnell was never in that league; he's never been more than a cheap obstructionist. Nothing succeeds like success, and you're only successful so long as what you do works. If McConnell was going to scorch the Senate earth, he’d have stopped the COVID relief bill in its tracks and made Biden into Obama redux.Haven't you basically already scorched the earth
— Raw Story (@RawStory) March 16, 2021
‘Joker threatening Gotham City’: McConnell mocked for threatening to go ‘scorched earth’ if Dems kill filibusterhttps://t.co/L0AF2jHoo1
Isn't that exactly what the Senate has been known for since the 2010 midterms?Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the filibuster: “Nobody serving in this chamber can even begin to imagine what a completely scorched earth Senate would look like.” pic.twitter.com/GTDQpW9clp
— The Recount (@therecount) March 16, 2021
It's really just a matter of who has the whip hand. Now that he doesn't, McConnell's "genius" is just reduced to bluster.Trading this for the ability to actually pass bills like voting rights seems like an easy call. If McConnell's tactics become truly onerous, Dems can always pass further reforms to end obstruction. McConnell's goal is to make government fail, Dems' goal should be to make it work. https://t.co/Ob7uawekoM
— Adam Jentleson 🎈 (@AJentleson) March 16, 2021
True, too true. Not that it really matters what the press says about him (although the.press thinks it does).People who treat McConnell as some sort of sincere institutionalist are full of shit or too stupid to cover Congress
— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) March 16, 2021
Biden says he supports reforming Senate filibuster in ABC News exclusive interview - ABC News - https://t.co/ndwJPkRvwg via @ABC
— Ben Siegel (@bensiegel) March 17, 2021
This makes me curious about how the filibuster got changed into the present rules from the more rigorous form of it, what sort of "reform" it was peddled to idiots in the Senate as being and whose idea it was to do that. I wonder if it was the same kind of "reform" that opened up the referendum process in Maine and other states and made it absurdly easy for candidates who have no chance of winning getting on the ballot. A lot of that kind of "making things fair" "leveling the playing field" and other late 60s-70s "liberal" BS was rather obviously stupidly entered into by dolts who figured they were invulnerable. I relate it to the "more speech" slogan, as well.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that it was sold as giving the minority more power by "leveling the playing field" and giving the minority "a voice." At which point the minority, still being in the minority, had one true power: objection.
DeleteI'm thinking of the scenes in Chayefsky's "Hospital" where different community groups are arguing loudly and harshly over who gets to decide some obscure bit of public policy regarding the hospital's administration. As more voices came to the table in that time, more chaos seemed to be the result. Democracy is either fought over, or each group is given enough power to stymie all the other groups, and you get a logjam.
I think I prefer the fight. Yes, somebody wins and somebody loses; but in the long run, the fight is supposed to go on, and that levels the playing field.
We could, of course, go for the gospel lesson of first of all being last and servant of all. I just don't think most people will accept that as a governing principle. And the foundation of the gospel principle is that you can't force it on anyone else.
As Van Morrison said: "Hey, there you are."