What the election means

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

This was about more than Obama's victory. Several Tea Party extremists were also defeated. Todd Akin, Allen West, Joe Walsh (not of Eagles fame hehe), Richard Mourdock, and others were among them. While Democrats made gains in the House, the GOP still holds the majority.

The question is will this end GOP stonewalling in Congress? It would be nice if the House could pass something (aside from a repeal of Obamacare that has no chance of becoming law). It would be nice if the Senate would stop filibustering everything that Obama proposes. If the GOP continues their obstruction tactics, how will it affect them in 2014?

Comments

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Not a Debbie Downer at all. I meant more about GOP attitudes than the more practical changes in procedure. I'd be all for changing the filibuster to requiring 51 votes to stop it, though.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Nope, I don't think their attitudes will change all that much.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Probably not. Like I said I think at this point it's win-win. If they remain stubborn they'll keep losing (which would benefit the country greatly). If they finally compromise then our country will benefit that much sooner.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

So at least another two years of nothing going on in Congress? We're all the losers in that circumstnce honestly. In fact, Mitt was making precisely that as a reason to vote for him "If you elect Obama, you know NOTHING will get out of Congress. Elect me, that could change!"

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Dems need to start learning how to put real pressure then to keep that from happening.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

To do that, they'd need to control the agenda, which I suspect that Boehner will deny them from the first by putting out the first fiscal cliff solution.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

One can hope.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

One could.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

It would change a lot if anybody had spine enough to make them actually stand there and fillibuster.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Good luck finding 66 Senators to go along with that.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

No luck needed. And won't need 66 votes.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Sure you do. As the Senate is a continuing body, it cannot change its rules without 66 votes.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

No, you don't.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The Senate rules are the Senate rules. Argue against reality at your own peril.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Why not? You do it ALL the time :-)

Harry Reid's Uphill Battle.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Do you not understand the mechanics of the "nuclear option," or what? I've seen you raise this point about a half-dozen times and never tell me why it wouldn't work.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I understand the desire to attempt it, but it's not workable - there aren't enough votes to make it stick, and it exposes the leadership to legal troubles.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I'd love to see a judge get involved in that particular mess. Congressional rulemaking screams political question nonjusticiability. And, why would you need votes to make it stick? It requires fifty and the Vice Presidency, which they appear to have. They might not have 50 for specifically killing the filibuster, and if that's what you mean, then OK. But it appears they have the requisite number to attempt it.