Ed Schultz sounds like an idiot right now...

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

...and "co-host" John Nichols isn't setting him straight!

Ed's saying that he disagrees with Harry Reid and that Reid should not change the filibuster rules: leave them as they are. OK, that's his opinion, it's just one that I disagree with. But the problem with his argument is that he thinks it's based on facts, when in fact, he's merely regurgitating conventional wisdom about the history of the filibuster. This shit is so readily available, you just have to be intellectually lazy not to research it.

1. Schultz: The filibuster was specifically designed to protect the voice of the minority.
FALSE: Political scientist Sarah Binder writes that the filibuster was a "happy accident" that wasn't even discovered for years:

"In 1805, Aaron Burr has just killed Alexander Hamilton. He comes back to the Senate and gives his farewell address. Burr basically says that you are a great body. You are conscientious and wise, you do not give in to the whims of passion. But your rules are a mess. And he goes through the rulebook pointing out duplicates and things that are unclear."

"Among his suggestions was to drop the previous question motion. And they pretty much just take Burr's advice. And once it's gone, it takes some time for leaders to realize that they can't cut off debate anymore. But the striking part to me was that we say the Senate developed the filibuster to protect minorities and the right to debate. That's hogwash! It's a mistake. Believe me, I would've loved to find the smoking gun where the Senate decides to create a deliberative body. But it takes years before anyone figures out that the filibuster has just been created."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/how_the_filibuster_was_invente.html

2. Schultz: It's worked this way for generations, don't change it now.
FALSE: It's been change several times over the years, but most recently, and most germane to today's debate, it was changed in 2003 when the "phantom filibuster" was introduced. Many believe that this is a rule change that Reid is considering. Ed says, no, leave it as it's been for "generations."

As for his opinion, he believes that Americans have it all figured out and that the Republicans will fall off the face of the earth in the next two election cycles. So "Democratic" of him: Expect the best case scenario and live to regret not striking when you had the chance.

What happened to the tough guy?

[Puglover]

1. Yeah, he really was off base there. nt

[The Magistrate]

2. He Worries Over What Might Happen If the Tables Were Turned, Sir

That has long been one of the stabilizing elements in our system; a healthy respect for the prospect of not being in the majority at some time in the future.

Not arguing there should not be reform of the filibuster, mind, only pointing out that there are legitimate reasons for not being on board with actions to restrict it.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

5. That's fine, but he shouldn't sound like an ignoramus, should he? And...

...all his guest, Adam Green, suggested was that the "phantom filibuster" be removed and Republicans be forced to stand and talk like idiots for hours on end.

No, according to Ed, don't change a thing because it's been like this for "generations."

[The Magistrate]

12. I Tune In To Our Ed For Fighting Spirit, Sir

That he has in abundance.

And when a man inclined to fight has reservations about entering one, that suggests at least a pause before decision might be warranted.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

16. I love Ed. It just pisses me off when he thinks he has the facts, but doesn't.

He's a great voice for unions and the middle class, but he has blind spots because he doesn't do his homework.

Here's another example from a few weeks ago.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021585171

[Bake]

29. I worry about that too.

We may not always have the majority.

Bake

[TeamPooka]

3. ignorance is bliss Ed.

[regnaD kciN]

4. Whether Ed is right or wrong...

...I really don't see the point to changing these rules until we have a House majority as well. Eliminating or limiting the filibuster gains us nothing, as long as Bo(eh)ner and company can simply block everything in the lower chamber, and it could come back to haunt us if the Repugs get control of Congress and the White House before we do.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

9. It's not "all or nothing"

I've never heard Reid say he's going to do anything but change it in some way. Many speculate that he'll merely kill the "phantom filibuster" and make the idiots stand and talk for hours on end. If you heard that Reid intends to kill the filibuster altogether, that's news to everyone.

[still_one]

10. It highlights who is obstructing. If the senate passes a reasonable piece of legislation but the

House votes it down without trying to compromise, there will be no ambiguity or talking point for them in 2 years in the next election

[99Forever]

13. Senate rules have nothing to do with the House.

You do get that they are two separate entities, that operate within the Legislative branch of our government,right?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

15. As to your first point, it does make sense to change it now...

...do to redistricting, by the time the Dems get the House, the Rs could have the Senate. Got to do it when the opportunity affords itself, not when you wish the stars align.

[ToxMarz]

19. Senate also confirms Judges (including Supreme Court) and Cabinet Members. And they have used

filibuster and threat if filibuster to screw both of those up. It needs to be changed, I don't consider Ed to be an Oracle of wisdom. And once he gets an idea, he won't let go even if he's wrong. Annoying.

[Puzzledtraveller]

22. I agree and what I see as far as advocates of changing it

appears to be short term gratification with little thought to the repercussions. Too often there have been these examples from the liberal quarter that we despise one sid so bad we would be willing to tie our hands in the future. It is stupid and reckless.

[librechik]

6. sad fact: Ed can be a nitwit

he's a good spokesman in general, and he means well,
but sometimes he just gets things WRONG!

[still_one]

7. People may not realize but the filibuster was used to maintain slavery in this country for years.

Today it isn't being used to protect the minority, it is used for obstruction pure and simple

[Zen Democrat]

8. I think there should be limitations on when the filibuster can be used.

To use it for any and everything is crazy and will only clog up the Senate forever. There need to be guidelines established for its use.

The ability of one senator to anonymously put a hold on legislation, nominations, etc., is ridiculous and should be stopped completely.

[still_one]

11. At the very least

[Anthony McCarthy]

14. If they want to filibuster make them hold the floor

if they want to put a hold on something or someone, make them pin their name on it, limit the time of the hold.

It's like life time tenure on the Supreme Court, it works for progress once in a while but it usually is used to destroy change. Civil rights, anti-lynching laws were the subject of filibusters.

Bernie Sanders did it the right way.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. I know that the Ezra Klein replacement story was unsubstantiated, but I now understand why it was

put out there. There are people who are fed up with the fact that Ed Schultz is ill prepared and often doesn't know what he's talking about. All he has is emotion. While I appreciate his passion for liberal causes, he does us quite a disservice when he simply doesn't know the facts.

[Whisp]

18. for all his bluster and vein popping he is a Lightweight.

and an actor.

He's one of the less talented actors, too.

[DainBramaged]

20. I guess it's a good day to rip our defenders

(picture me holding my nose over this thread)

[Cary]

23. I think Ed has a point

We do have the wind at our back right now. The American people will blame the Republicans.

[kansasobama]

24. I agree with Ed

No, I agree. Here is the danger. If there is no filibuster, Obama will be fighting to get votes from just Dems and believe it or not there will be times he will be put to shame. Think about the DINOs (Manchen, and several senators from Red States).

If there is a filibuster, it puts pressure on Republicans and it would also be easier to point fingers.

If there is no filibuster and if the tables are turned, they will be appointing judges that will overthrow every progressive on bench.

[bluestate10]

26. You confuse the Super Majority Rule with the Filibuster. As long as democrats are close to

republicans in number, the party can Filibuster until the cows come home until they run out of time.

[bluestate10]

25. The Filibuster should stay. The Super Majority Rule for a vote should be gotten rid of. nt

[liberalmuse]

27. I don't agree with Ed on this.

He didn't sound like an idiot - he has a right to his opinion, and we have the right to heartily disagree.

[MjolnirTime]

28. Ed's head is made of bricks. It's nice to have him on our side, but don't let him do our thinking.