Happy Birthday to Bob Ojeda, 56. Mainly because he always reminds me of Blue Sox hero Steve Olin, who would have been 48 now. Sad. Also, because in the 30+ years I've known her, my wife really cared about baseball for about a two week stretch: Mets vs. Astros, Mets vs. Red Sox.
The good stuff:
Jon Krasno and Gregory Robinson make the case for shifting the filibuster burden from the majority (needing 60) to the minority (needing 41). I'm okay with this, but I've never really believed that it would make much difference. Nor do I think it's a likely compromise position and more. So not much hope for it, but it does make sense.
Greg Sargent with two of his smart focuses: that the way to judge how Healthcare.gov is doing is by watching the insurance companies; and that Republicans are utterly convinced that the ACA has already failed, past tense.
And I haven't read it yet, but very much looking forward to Jon Ralston on Harry Reid.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
For a sec, I thought it was Jon Ronson on Harry Reid, and I got incredibly excited.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, obligatory borked link warning for Krasno & Robinson. Original seems here:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/-42771-1.html
That Roll Call link is from 2010. Krasno & Robinson are making the same case, but today's item is in Monkey Cage:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/12/16/if-the-filibuster-does-survive-heres-how-to-make-it-better/
I heartily agree with Krasno & Robinson's case for 41. I think it would make a difference for low intensity filibusters. I've always been surprised our Plain Blogger is so unenthusiastic about this proposal.
Link fixed up top, too; thanks all. Sorry to get to it so slowly, but I'm on a plane...all kinds of things going on.
DeleteJon's my buddy by the way, and a very smart guy (I don't know Robinson personally). As far as the efficacy of 41: the thing is that switching to 41 *and* sort of maximizing trouble for the minority could definitely be effective, but Senate comity has never really allowed for that -- and if a majority leader ever tried it (without further rules changes), then I think you really would see a unified and mostly successful minority party effort to shut down the Senate.
So basically it would just mean holding the same cloture votes as today, but on close ones the minority would have to inconvenience themselves to make sure 41 showed up, and every once in a while on a low-priority close one the minority might lose a cloture vote because someone wasn't there. It's not nothing, but I don't think it's a big deal.
Ojeda really had quite the year in '86. What a great postseason that was.
ReplyDeleteThe profile of Reid is really good, and so is the profile of Clinton and the democratic nomination back in 1992 that you referenced (I think) awhile ago.
ReplyDelete