Dana Milbank- Irredeemable Asshole: The Democrats’ naked power grab

[cali]

Congress is broken,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday before holding a party-line vote that disposed of rules that have guided and protected the chamber since 1789.

If Congress wasn’t broken before, it certainly is now. What Reid (Nev.) and his fellow Democrats effectively did was take the chamber of Congress that still functioned at a modest level and turn it into a clone of the other chamber, which functions not at all. They turned the Senate into the House

Democrats were fully justified in stripping Republicans of their right to filibuster President Obama’s nominees — yet they will come to deeply regret what they have done.

Certainly, Republicans have abused the dilatory tactics that Senate minorities have, for centuries, used with greater responsibility; they seem intent on bringing government to a halt. And the Senate in 2013 is hardly a healthy institution. Yet it has achieved far more than the House — passing bipartisan immigration legislation and a farm bill and working out deals to avoid default and to end the federal government shutdown — largely because, until Thursday, Senate rules required the majority party to win votes from the minority. .

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-the-democrats-naked-power-grab/2013/11/21/60ef049a-5306-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html?hpid=z2

A mind full of mush and a total tool. Just in case you had any doubts

[napkinz]

1. Don't you feeling like saying, "Oh Dana!"

(What Dana Perino's husband said to her after she asked him what "The Cuban Missile Crisis" was. For those who don't remember, Dana Perino was Bush's White House Press Secretary. )

[Laelth]

2. stevenk2's comments following the article are worth reading.

This column might have made some sense had Republicans been playing by the spirit of the rules. They have not. They have engaged in raw thuggery for five years now, destroying the constitutional concept of majority rule.

There is not a word in the Constitution about the filibuster. It is a parliamentary invention. It survived for lo these many years only because it was relatively infrequently used. The Senate existed as a deliberative body because its members showed a modicum of comity towards each other. That ended years ago. And, it was Republicans who decided that, rather than act as members of a deliberative body, they would engage in obstructionism wherever and whenever possible. The consequence: this country has a legislative branch that functions more poorly than those of many Third World countries.

Harry Reid did not act precipitously on the filibuster. This has been coming for years. He brokered deal after deal with Republicans to maintain the right to filibuster predicated on Republicans using that right only sparingly and when justified by extraordinary considerations. What did he get for it? Contempt, abuse, derision, and scorn, as Republicans routinely broke their promises.

What was done was necessary. There are more important things in our society than the archaic parliamentary rules of the Senate. And, not the least of those is allowing us to have a functioning government. Bravo to Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats! It was high time that they stood up to Republicans' thuggery.

That's well said.

-Laelth

[HereSince1628]

3. Well, like the beer commercial...it's only wrong if it doesn't work,

And there really hasn't been a chance to see how it works, yet. So, the criticism seems too soon to me.

Unless of course, you're either enjoying the scores of unfilled judicial appointments by an administration that is probably more to the right than it is to the left or scared the obstructionists will do something worse.