An Angels blog
Pearly Gates: An Angels Blog
Pearly Gates: An Angels Blog
Pearly Gates: An Angels Blog

Navigate

Pearly Gates is...

Quick Reference

BP Player Cards:

ESPN Player Cards:

Baseball Cube:

Baseball Reference:

Recent posts

Links

Archive

Contact

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Times comes out in favor of "nuclear option"

Well, there's a plesant surprise - and they take a nice shot at Babs as well! The Times sticking to principles (unlike some newspapers I know...):
The filibuster is a reactionary instrument that goes too far in empowering a minority of senators. It's no accident that most filibusters have hindered progressive crusades in Washington, be it on civil rights or campaign finance reform. California's Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, one of those recent converts to the filibuster, embarrassed herself by hailing Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) as her inspiration at a pro-filibuster rally. At least Byrd is being consistent in his support - he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

A showdown is looking increasingly likely, though it isn't clear that all Republicans want this fight. Some of them realize they will again be in the minority someday and that the filibuster is a handy brake on the federal government's activism. If their caution prevails, or if Republicans take on the filibuster only in the narrow context of confirmation battles, we will happily weigh in again in the future, still on the anti-filibuster team.
That's exactly why everybody should support the "nuclear option." It's an unfortunate truth that Democrats will one day regain the upper hand in Washington. When that Dark Age dawns, the Republicans are going to look for retribution - and they'll be fully justified in their actions. Before you know it, we're locked in an endless cycle of tit-for-tat obstructionism, with both parties blocking anyone with a pulse just for spite. These filibusters are a new and dangerous phenomenon. Ending them is in the best interest of both parties.

Another thought: Am I the only one who sees a parallel between these filibusters and the endless blather of a "stolen election" and the tidal wave of litigation and false accusations after the 2000 election? The Democrats have made a pattern of taking shortsighted positions of late. While both examples may be good partisan politics in the short-term, they are also potentially disastrous for the American political process.

Back then I was asking myself "is it possible that they don't see the repercussions of re-writing election law after the fact? Or do they just not care?" Now I find myself asking similar questions.

Comments: