The Dems Nuclear Option

[marmar]

from The Nation:


BLOG | Posted 07/23/2007 @ 3:16pm
The Dems Nuclear Option

Ari Berman


We've done all we can do, Democrats said after pulling an all-nighter last week, when Republicans blocked yet another vote on a proposal to begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq.

It takes sixty votes to pass anything in the Senate these days. And Democrats had only fifty-two. After much hype, just three Republicans broke with President Bush. Until more Republicans defect, Congress is stuck in a stalemate.

But there's another option. Democrats could give Republicans a taste of their own medicine and invoke the "nuclear option." Two years ago Republicans threatened to eliminate the filibuster if Democrats didn't allow an up-or-down vote on President Bush's judicial nominees. Frightened Democrats acquiesced and allowed the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito, thus ensuring a conservative majority on the court for decades to come.

Is the war in Iraq equally important to Democrats? Vowing to alter the rules of the Senate would be a risky and unpredictable move. But it would prove that the party stands for more than all-night PR stunts.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Because Berman's observation is wrong

The Democrats have NOT done everything they can do, or intend to do. We, the "base", may want them to launch Armageddon ASAP, but that's not what most Democrats want. And they are not necessarily reactionaries or DLCers or TRAITORS! WHORES!, but have a distaste for adding politicking to tragedy. And that's exactly what they would see it as.

Want to change it? Have at it! But right now, the base is not particularly powerful. We are gaining strength, but it will be a long haul.

It is quite clear that the Democrats in both chambers have been turning up the heat up -- more slowly than we would like, but they have turned it up consistently. But it will be a long summer. Washington is at low ebb right now, and will be for another five or six weeks. The death toll in Iraq will rise, and most of us will wail and gnash our teeth, but until we do more than sit at our computers and fulminate, the rhythm of Washington will set the pace.

I can not tell what September will bring; no one can. But there is a lot of stuff going on below the active scrutiny of the Press, who are busy working on their tans and gossiping about Britney and Lindsay.

So fuss all you want; I am expecting nothing until September -- except for the resentment and anger over Bush to continue to build and build.

--p!

[Igel]

2. He misunderstands the 'nuclear option,' I believe.

In the case of confirmations, the only reason to debate is to present facts and sway people on the basis of them--and on the basis of rhetoric. There are no amendments that can result, no changes to the motion. The motion stands, unalterable, and debate is merely a prelude to voting on what the motion must be.

In the case of nearly everything else, there are amendments that are possible, amendments that change the meaning of the motion. You can speak and speak, and cause the person after you to offer an amendmnet. There can be many votes before the final 'up and down' vote. You don't like the deadline of 4/1/08 for withdrawing, you offer an amendment to make it earlier or later, etc., etc.

When the repubs were discussing the 'nuclear option', the press was clear that it would only affect nominations and such things. All 'such things' were unamendable.