Well, the Senate is back in session but it hasn’t changed its ways. The Republicans voted unanimously against the confirmation of Henry Aaron to serve on the advisory board for Social Security for a term that ends in 18 days.
I am not certain why they all opposed Mr. Aaron, but I assume it is just a temper tantrum related to Harry Reid using the nuclear option.
I wish the American people better understood the degree of childishness that the Republicans demonstrate on a daily basis.
I wish the American people better understood the degree of childishness that the Republicans demonstrate on a daily basis.
What makes you think that a significant portion, if not majority, wouldn’t approve of the Republican’s actions if properly explained in context?
I know that I live in a relatively blue part of the country, but I literally do not personally know any adults who think the Senate should resemble a poorly-run nursery school.
If the Democratic Party had acted this way as the minority party to stop George W. Bush’s Social Security privatization schemes, Patriot Act, and the Iraq War, how many leftists would’ve approved of their actions?
That’s the calculus conservatives are running under. They might in abstract support functional, bipartisan government but they certainly don’t support liberal policy. And if the former has to be sacrificed to protect the latter, so be it.
Thwart, not protect.
Most people are not that political. How many people do you know who think the Senate Republicans should vote en masse against virtually all nominees regardless of their merit?
If you put it in the context of ‘and we do this to increase the chances of rendering Obama’s administration dysfunctional and halt liberal progress’, you’ll find out that a lot of conservatives and libertarians would in fact support it.
If you ask the question, ‘do you support cutting open children with knives?’ most people are going to say no. If you add ‘What if it’s to do an organ transplant?’ then a lot of people are going to say ‘yes’. Such as it is with Senate dysfunction.
Why do we have a filibuster at all? 51 votes should win the day.
As long as the Senate remains unable or unwilling to deal with technology issues, global warming, reconsidering the AUMF, investigating the surveillance state, investigating voter rights abuses, or investigating the CIA, voting down an Obama nominee is about as good as it gets these days.
The Democrats in the Senate are dysfunctional for not putting down policy markers that distinguish them from the Republicans. It makes the whole body seem the bride of K Street.
And the Democrats still have the ability to use the nuclear option on appointments.
The Senate has not changed its ways because Mitch McConnell sees polls that tell him he can pull out a re-election from Kentucky. The Turtle is almost in exactly the same position that Boehner is. And the GOP stands to gain a few seats in November by conventional wisdom.
The democrats could eliminate the filibuster but it is convenient to hide behind from time to time. And blame it on that nasty McConnell.
I blame Obama. If he was the kind of leader who led, with leadership, none of this would be happening.
I don’t believe that. Our system of government allows one party to block the other so long as one controls one or two branches of government. The supreme court can also block the will of congress like the Medicaid problem.
That said there is still much one could blame on Obama.
You have missed Davis’ subtle form of snark, which is much appreciated in these parts.
Sorry about that.
No need to apologize, unless you are Canadian
not Canadian but had to clear it up for them in case one stopped by/s
Davis, you’ve moved beyond Faux – not just that he should lead, but he should lead with leadership. magnificent. No telling what might be accomplished. For example re: ppl riding in elevators and not having to take the stairs, … if only he would lead w. leadership
Leadership is the answer.
And golf. More golf, with different foursomes. I suggest Cornell West, John Kyl, Jaimie Dimon and Obama tee ’em up.
Yes, true leading with leadership, bipartisan style, would be to send Dick Cheney as the President’s special envoy to Raqaa to deliver a tough Presidential message to ISIS. Why isn’t the Muslim Socialist Kenyan doing this? It must be weakness.
that will work
Well, the Senate is back in session but it hasn’t changed its ways. The Republicans voted unanimously against the confirmation of Henry Aaron to serve on the advisory board for Social Security for a term that ends in 18 days.
The all-time HR king, or the guy from Brookings?
I’m so glad you asked. My immediate thought was of Hammerin’ Hank. How could anyone vote against Hank Aaron?
The GOP isn’t very fond of Hank Aaron. They’d prefer him dead, like MLK or Jesus, so that they can selectively quote what he says and pretend that he thinks that blacks are the real racists. Unfortunately, Hank has a habit of saying what he thinks about racism from time to time.
For a nation of people that often and easily hides under their beds in fear of the latest boogieman, those who throw temper tantrums look strong and forceful.
The Senate is a worthless good ol’ boy’s club. Everything makes sense if you look at it that way. Gillibrand confirmed it when she talked about the harassment. It’s up to the voters to get rid of them. I don’t want to hear anything from blue staters that kept the filibuster going(looking at you Boxer and Feinstein). The Senators don’t care about their constituents; they care about their careers and benefits. Things are different with the newer Senators. They know we have zero time to play games.