If it happens, it will likely be over the next couple of cycles. Once the presidential election is over, people will be more likely to stop obsessing about the White House and to focus their wrath where it belongs.
Now, sure as the sun will cross the sky, this lie is over. Lost, like the tears that used to tide me over.
Sounds overly optimistic to me, especially with the flood of right wing money down ticket now that Romney is basically a lost cause.
We have a tight race on Long Island where Democratic incumbent, Tim Bishop, is in a tight race in NY1 against the well funded Randy Altschuler. Altschuler’s campaign misfired early in the year when he ran ads blaming Bishop for the rise in gasoline prices and then the prices went down instead of up.
Last I heard Bishop had a slight lead.
Long Island? That’s the place where everybody nasally honks their vowel sounds, right?
But there’s still the debates. Sure, it’s Obama’s race to lose at this point, so a gaffe could possibly make his chances of election harder, but a Romney gaffe could increase Obama’s coattails. Of course it’d have to be a Rick Perry-level blunder, but that’s not out of the question with Mitt.
Ooh, maybe Obama will do some point-shaving, so that they keep pumping money into the presidential race.
If Obama can keep it close, and let’s face it, he pwnz Romney - he can sweep the swing states like a downtown three-pointer if he wants - if he can keep it close, where each swing state seems this close to winnable - then he can protect his peeps in the congressional races from an influx of Rove-dollars.
Damn, Obama’s good.
Wackos win in wacko districts like Waters(D) and Bachmann(R) and are never voted out by the crazies. How many moderate districts are being contested by wackyass Pubbies?
We dispensed of this canard in another thread. Read Senate Rule V Paragraph 2. Not to say a majority can’t change the rules, but the idea that there are no rules at opening of the session and they must be readopted (re: no filibuster) is plain wrong. The readoption of the rules on the first day is merely ceremonial.
Considering the low voter turnout (especially among women and minorities) in 2010, I suspect that this may not be the case this year.
So this is a referendum on Obama. Well, maybe but Mitt is doing a good job to make this a referendum on him too.
These are good responses/contributions SC:
-
It happens more than you would think. Redistricting can put wackos into a competitive district. And sometimes it happens anyway: Paul Ryan’s district went for Obama in 2008 for example. Joe Walsh, Steve King, Michele Bachmann and Allen West face competitive elections this cycle: I predict that at least one of them will lose.
-
Now that Republicans vote in lockstep, conservative neuro-typicals possess nutty voting records. The most obvious example being the budgetary hostage taking and subsequent downgrading of the US’s credit rating by S&P. But there’s also the matter of votes against gang rape curbs. Details, debate and qualifications in thread.
I had no idea. Here’s the thread: it’s confusing in my view. My summary: Majorities can change the rules as they see fit at the beginning of the session, BUT:
a) There’s some constitutional ambiguity on this point, meaning that it might not fly,
b) they can expect payback at a later date, and
c) worse, there are a lot of ways for a minority to create havoc for the majority in the Senate. So changes in rules would have to be pretty comprehensive. And that seems unlikely.
But as I said, that’s my summary and I don’t know whether I’ve gotten it correct. Anyway, consider my previous claim to be subject to considerable doubt. Crap. I thought there was a more straightforward path out. 
I’m going to disagree with you on this point. According to neo-Keynesians, any discussion that attempts to curb spending turns into, “OMGF! If we don’t spend more money we’ll be in the Stone Age by next week.” The Republican point was that we need to talk about fiscal responsibilty and not just jack up the deficit limit. The N-Ks counter that this is an economic crisis of epic proportions (and they may be right) but then again for N-Ks, everything is an economic crisis that can only be solved by more government spending. And I believe that the credit rating downgrade was do a hell of a lot more to increasing the debt that a few Pubs saying, “Ya know, maybe there’s another way to do this.” (And yes I do know it was increased under Bush Jr. numerous times so our soldiers could be in Iraq)
No Constituional ambiguity at all. The Senate may make its own rules and they did with Rule V stating that the standingrules are always in effect. And by Rule V, rule changes must be in writing one day in advance. No one is saying that the majority cannot change the rules but filibuster rules apply.
You seem to misunderstand the economic argument. Keynesians and followers of the standard macroeconomic textbooks believe that both fiscal and monetary policy loosening can fight recession. The problem with this financial crisis is that conventional monetary policy has already been maxed out: the Fed Funds rate is now 0.25%. That leaves us with fiscal policy and unconventional monetary policy if we want to address the worst downturn since WWII. So no, not “Everything is an economic crisis”. Furthermore, the unusual severity of this downturn isn’t in question, is it?
To be clear, the S&P downgraded the US’s credit rating to below AAA, because it lacked confidence that interest would inevitably be paid in a timely manner. The financial penalty that the US paid was small or perhaps nonexistent. But I consider this to be a fairly decent indicator of governmental dysfunction, whose responsibility lies purely at the feet of the Republican caucus.
I’ll furthermore add that not a single constructive development can be traced to the Tea Party. Nothing. Nada. As a good government group, they are pathetic. They couldn’t even phase out the penny, though they tried. Compare this with the Watergate class of 1974. Lots of activity followed.
So… you’re saying that 55 Senators could attempt to ban the filibuster, except that proposal could be filibustered, even if it occurred in the beginning of the Congressional session. And that there’s no ambiguity there. So in practice today banning the filibuster would require 60 votes. (This is an honest question, btw.)
If the Republicans were so opposed to racking up more debt, why did they do it? The whole debt ceiling debate wasn’t about whether we were going to rack up the debt, just about whether we were going to pay it. The debt increase was in there as soon as the budget was passed, and no legislature can change the rules of arithmetic.
As I’ve heard it explained, rules changes of that kind aren’t liable to filibustering. I’m sure that the minority party would try (I’d very much expect the Democrats to try it if the shoes were on the other feet.) But a strict reading of the rules (gawd, no, I haven’t read 'em, just had 'em explained) says no.
Political theater at its finest! Maybe the Republicans will walk out to deprive the Senate of a quorum? (As the Democratic members did in Texas over the redistricting fight? Again, turnabout is fair play.)
For rules changes, Senate rule 22 says you need 2/3 of those present and voting to break the filibuster, rather than 60.
Other than that, you’ve got the standard interpretation of the Senate rules down right.
It was the opening shot in The Republican War on Arithmetic. (See also: Paul Ryan budget proposals, Mitt Romney tax cut proposal.)
I honestly think that for some of them, they did not understand what the debt ceiling increase was, and they really, actually thought that their theatrics were going to stop the government from wasting money. Yes, I think that some of them are actually that dumb.
The others were putting on theater for their own constituents who they assumed were dumb, and did not know the difference between passing a budget and raising the debt ceiling.
Wouldn’t work. Per Rule 6:
Since I’m quoting Senate rules, I might as well put up some relevant texts:
- U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 5, Paragraph 2:
- Senate Rule 5:
Senate Rule 22 (applicable portion quoted):
So you’re saying, the majority can technically change the rules, so Article I, Section 5 isn’t contravened. And you’re saying that, with respect to Article I, Section 5, the fact that a minority of 34 Senators can prevent the majority from actually doing so is immaterial.
Is that a fair restatement?
What I’d say in response is that Rules 5 and 22, in concert, have the effect in actual practice of making it impossible for a majority of the current Senate to determine its own rules, and that in fact, the rules of the current Senate are determined not by the current Senate, but by Senators who have long since gone to their graves.
I don’t think a bunch of dead Senators can forever lock out current and future Senates from making their own rules. I think that flies in the fact of Article I, Section 5.
In addition, I’d say that while the notion that there’s a moment before a new Congress is formally gaveled in that is technically outside the “from one Congress to the next Congress” of Rule 5 is worth exploiting if that’s the ruse that allows reform of the rules, I think the attempt of the Senate majority in the 2005-2006 Congress to end filibusters of judicial nominees via the “constitutional option” is sufficient precedent for a majority choosing to reform the rules at any time.
Finally, if a Senate chooses, by majority vote, to reform its rules, who is going to tell them otherwise? Is the minority going to take the majority to court? On what basis? That the majority didn’t honor the rules? The Constitution says they can determine those rules. Besides, the courts have generally stayed out of internal disputes within the other branches of government. So good luck with that.
I understand that but not a lot of N-Ks do. I posted a list of the years wh have had spending cuts in nominal and IIRC percent of GDP terms. Many of the years we have had increased spendings were also years of growth and not recession. Also, discussions we have had on this board tend to show the N-K true colors that spending reduction at anytime will have an intolerable negative impact on the US economy. I freely admit that whereas raising spending may have been approporiate during the economic freefall, the N-Ks will also justitify the spending increases during Bush “No new taxes” Sr.'s term.
As pointed out in the other thread, during the Obamacare debate, the Senate violated their own rules and common parliamentary law in opposition to the parliamentarians objection regarding dispensing with handling an amendment. A point of order was raised and rejected by the presiding officer and his ruling was upheld upon appeal. This if used to reform the filibuster would be the nuclear option everyone talks about.
No “technically” about it. A majority can change the rules but since rule changes are bills they can be filibustered by a number greater than 1/3 of those present. The trick is that the 2/3 majority is for the cloture vote. If a cloture vote is not taken then it is a simple majority and Points of Order and Appeals are without debate so they cannot be filibustered.
No one is preventing future Senates from changing the rules. It’s just that rule changes can be filibustered. Your idea about no rules before a new session starts shows a fundamental misunderstanding of deliberative bodies. A body cannot conduct business while not in session and as soon as it is in session Rule V takes effect.
US v. Ballin. Basically the majority is always right which almost paradoxically makes the Obamacare debate rules violation legal. It also means the nuclear option would be perfectly legal too. If not satisfied with that, remember it only takes a majority to change the rules. Maybe if a rule were in place that 2/3 vote was needed to change the standing rules then perhaps Ballin wouldn’t apply considering counting 51 ayes vs. the 67 ayes needed is a question of fact. But as long as it is up to the presiding officer to make rulings based on opinion viz. the opinion of the chair is that there is a quorum or in the opinion of the chair there is no objection then his word - or rather the word of the majority assuming it gets to an appeal - is valid and unquestionable.
And nobody was preventing the residents of Hiroshima from going about their business as usual on August 20, 1945. It’s just that A-bombs had been dropped.
I think the argument is that the Senate can be in session, strictly for the purpose of considering its own rules but not taking up legislation, after January 3 on an odd year (i.e. the previous Congress is over), but before the new Congress has been gaveled into session.
I think it’s just an excuse, a ruse, because as you point out: