Elizabeth Warren is Unhappy with Mitch McConnell Over Blocked Student Loan Bill

Image from source, PoliticsUSA

I make no secret around here that I love Elizabeth Warren. I'd vote for her for any office she'd run for up to and including (wishful thinking ) president. I think she actually and honestly cares about what she's doing. And her big student loan bill came this close to actually passing. In fact, it passed by a majority about as large as Eric Cantor's loss on election night, but didn't quite make it to supermajority. Yes, Senator Mitch (duck and cover) McConnell mounted a filibuster threat, and that was that. Not because the bill was bad, but because it a) was a Democrat's idea and b) was paid for by raising taxes on the super-rich. Oh, woe is them.

Here's what I've got to wonder though. Every time Republicans block legislation that is popular with broad swaths of the electorate, students, minorities, women, aren't they just shooting themselves in the foot electorally? I mean, I know that Americans have notoriously short memories, and that they are unfortunately easily misled. But in this era of the Googles, John Stewart and Bill Maher, I've got to think voters are going to be reminded come election day.

[Excerpt]
 
Elizabeth Warren Declares War on Mitch McConnell After He Blocked Her Student Loan Bill
 
"Well, accountability is exactly the right word. I plan on fighting back on this, and I hope that everybody else does too. One way, I’m going to start fighting back is I’m going to go down to Kentucky and I’m going to campaign for Alison Lundergan Grimes, . She’s tough. She’s feisty. She endorsed the student loan bill, said she wanted to bring down interest rates for Kentuckians, and so my view is, I’m going to get out there and try to make this happen for her. . ."

Read more (with video) at: PoliticsUSA

Ted Cruz Threatens Filibuster of Debt Ceiling

He just oozes douchiness. Image from source, TPM

Sigh.

This guy. Again. Because his other stunts have won so much for both him and his party. It's just. . .I can't even. . .

[Excerpt]

Ted Cruz Threatens To Filibuster Clean Debt Limit Hike

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) will push a 60-vote threshold, meaning he's threatening to filibuster, on a clean debt ceiling increase extension. Cruz's office confirmed the Texas senator's plans to TPM on Tuesday afternoon.

Cruz's move means lawmakers will need to rally 60 votes in the chamber to pass the bill, and Democrats only control 55 votes. . .

 

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

Harry Reid Finally Kills the Filibuster (Mostly)

Image from source, New York Times

The fear that has been hanging over Senate Democrats' heads regarding the filibuster always was, If we get rid of it, we'll regret it when the day comes that we're out of power. That's a valid concern, but there was absolutely no assurance that if the Senate flipped to Republican control that they wouldn't "go nuclear," and kill the filibuster anyway.

As has been widely reported, virtually half of the filibusters that have ever happened, have been used during President Obama's tenure. Democrats even warned Senate Minority Leader Myrtle the Turtle Mitch McConnell that if the GOP continued to block the three judicial nominations on deck, that they'd revoke the filibuster. McConnell apparently called Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's bluff, and Reid--finally, finally--wasn't bluffing. This wasn't a dick move by Reid. It was a solution to the long list of dick moves by Senate Republicans.

The filibuster remains for Supreme Court appointments.

[Excerpt]

In Landmark Vote, Senate Limits Use of the Filibuster

The Senate approved the most fundamental alteration of its rules in more than a generation on Thursday, ending the minority party’s ability to filibuster most presidential nominees in response to the partisan gridlock that has plagued Congress for much of the Obama administration. . .

Read more at: New York Times

A Little Fun at Ted Cruz's Expense

I've already shown you Right Wing World's reaction to Ted Cruz's Senate fauxlibuster. I showed you why it's pointless. And here are are couple of people having a really good time with the whole thing:

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Why Ted Cruz's Grandstanding Doesn't Matter

A face only a caricature artist could love. Image
from source, Think Progress

I wrote about this myself a bit ago, but if you'd prefer a bit more of a thorough explanation for why Ted Cruz's fauxlibuster is just a lot of hot air, here you go.

[Excerpt]

Why Ted Cruz’s Anti-Obamacare Grandstanding Doesn’t Matter At All

On Tuesday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) took to the floor to speak against the health reform law, attempting to block a funding bill from coming to a vote in the Senate. Cruz has been pushing to derail the funding bill unless it includes a provision to defund Obamacare — a far-right strategy which could ultimately force the federal government to shut down next week, and which doesn’t actually have the support of GOP leadership or the vast majority of Republican voters. Nonetheless, when he began speaking on Tuesday afternoon, Cruz vowed to continue his “speaking filibuster” until he is “no longer able to stand. . .”

Read more at: Think Progress

Ted Cruz Mounts Faux Filibuster, Right Wing World Goes Wild!

There are at least two things wrong with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and his "defund ObamaCare" filibuster: a) he's "blocking" cloture on a bill he actually supports, and b) the actual "bill" is not yet before the Senate. It is therefore not a filibuster and has no practical effect whatsoever. It's grandstanding at its most overt and most self-congratulatory. Cruz is doing this to pump up Cruz in Cruz's base. That's it.

South Park's Randy Marsh, after having been denied access
to the internet for far too long. And, what the average
FReeper looks like right now.

It's working, in that limited scope. I checked out FreeRepublic.com* to see what they thought of the spectacle. Comments were racking up as fast as I could read them, and the overall attitude there could be best expressed in the image of Stan's dad Randy, from South Park, shown here. In short, they like it a whole, whole lot. To the point of absurdity. The cheerleading there exceeds the most rabid right-winger's idea of what an "Obama-Bot" feels for the President to a ridiculous degree.  What's more, most of them seem to be under the misapprehension that this is an actual filibuster. Those lonely realist FReepers willing to point out the obvious, are shrugged off in exchange for the euphoria the rest of the crowd is feeling. Which is why the South Park image is so perfect.

Feel free to check it out, but by all means, bring a moist towel with you: FreeRepublic.

By the way "fauxlibuster" has been trending on Twitter, and has been reacting with glee and snark in pretty much the opposite direction.


*And in case you're wondering FreeRepublic is a far-right wing website that fancies itself "real America." Though they are arguably fringe kooks, they are the Tea Party, the hardcore element of it, in any event. That's why I keep tabs on them, even though dipping a toe in that cesspool can be hazardous to ones health. And as a graphic artist, I have to also say that the site has never been redesigned since its debut in the mid-1990s. Calling it an eyesore would be too kind.

UPDATED: to add that upon reading more (why, I don't really know), it's kind of disturbing that you can't get through very many posts without calls to prayer, mentions of God and Jesus, and other intertwining of religion and politics. I mean, I shouldn't be surprised (God, guns 'n' gays, and all that), but these people are really treating this Ted Cruz sideshow like a religious experience.

Filibuster Showdown Allegedly Coming

Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, from source, HuffPo

Harry Reid disappointed a lot of Democrats when he didn't enact filibuster reform, back when the Senate's session started. It was at least the second time that he let the window pass that I'm aware of. Republicans--of course--continued to filibuster everything anyway. Well, they threaten to filibuster,  which is all they need to do anymore.

What I, and a whole lot of other liberals wanted was the classic "talking filibuster," the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington kind. That way, there couldn't be any bitching about the filibuster having been eliminated, they would just have to work for it. Wouldn't that be nice? But no, Reid had some sort of gentleman's agreement with Mitch McChinless McConnell, who is clearly not a gentleman. But now, Reid is showing some backbone (or pretending to), and McConnell is squealing like a stuck turtle tortoise pig.

I hope they do something. I know it won't be the so-called "nuclear option." Reid is worried enough that the GOP will regain the majority (a hellish, impossible-to-believe-it's-possible possibility), that he'll make this "reform" limited. Just enough to get the President's confirmations through. But I'd be thrilled if he tacked on the talking filibuster for everything else. Majority or not.

[Excerpt]

Filibuster Reform: Senate Edges Closer To 'Nuclear Option' 

The Senate edged closer to a historic showdown over presidential appointments Monday night, with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) prepared to launch the so-called nuclear option after a rare all-senator meeting produced no compromise, but an agreement to keep talking.
"We had a very good conversation, that conversation is going to continue tonight," Reid said after the 3 1/2-hour meeting. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

President Obama's Angry Response to Senate Filibusters on Gun Laws

The President wasn't thrilled with the Senate's decision to do nothing about gun control legislation. I wasn't either, but the Blogger software ate my entire post, so here's the video. I'm tired.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Filibusted? Will There Really be a Vote on Gun Control?

I suspect that many gun owners see themselves
as Cable. Just a hunch.

If there's one thing I don't understand about American politics, it is why gun control can barely even be discussed. No doubt, we've come closer than just about ever, since the Sandy Hook shootings. And no doubt, there are lots of hot-button issues that make temperatures rise very quickly. But nothing like gun control makes people violently angry with little provocation.

Well, let me amend that. The holy right-wing trifecta of "Guns, God and Gays (and don't forget abortion!)" are all testy subjects, with the frothy foam coming mostly from that side of the aisle. Hey, right wing! Anger management! Look into it! Anyway, if you gently broach some of those subjects with some conservatives, you might at least have a reasonably civil discussion. But guns? Even with friends, it seems like the discussion spirals out of control barely ten words in. And it degenerates into silly arguments: "THAT'S not an assault rifle! It's not a CLIP, it's a MAGAZINE!!!"

From a liberal perspective--even me, never much of an anti-gun activist--many gun enthusiasts come off as slightly demented and a little scary. Some quite demented and a whole lot scary. To them, guns are the primary part of what they consider to be free, to be an American, to be (oddly enough) a Christian. Who would Jesus shoot? So, we're bewildered when even the most moderate, popular and non-obtrusive suggestions toward curbing gun violence are met with fierce blowback. When upwards of 90% of Americans are for universal background checks, the NRA and its fans go apeshit.

I'm including this meme only to point out its stupidity.
No, don't ban it. License it. Insure it. Make its owner
pass a test. Properly maintain it and have it inspected.
Make sure it's "street legal." Make its owner obey
all laws of its operation. Require registering it. Require
transfer documentation if sold. Etc., etc.

And then Congress cowers. Blue dog Democrats lapse into conserva-Demdom. Even with public support, and a very weakened NRA (who lost almost all of their electoral battles in 2012), the teeth have been taken out of every proposal. Ridiculous arguments like "criminals don't obey laws, so the only people punished are law-abiding citizens*," or "some people can change magazines in a second, so limiting their size won't make a difference," somehow gain credence. And Republicans threaten a filibuster of even the watered-down already modest proposals.

Well, at least that last part may not happen. Support for the filibuster seems to have waned (though by the time you read this, that may have changed). So the Senate will maybe be able to say they did something--however token--to answer Sandy Hook. I think they finally may have realized that that's all they need to do to make this all go away. Until the next mass shooting.

[Excerpt]

Threat to Block Debate on Guns Appears to Fade in Senate

Several Senate Republicans said Tuesday that they would not participate in a filibuster of the first major gun control bill since 1993, as Democrats appeared on the verge of overcoming a blockade threatened by a group of conservatives before a word of debate on the measure was uttered. . .
Read more at: New York Times

* No other arguments about laws work this way. We don't say that laws against murder or robbery or rape are worthless, because criminals won't obey them. It's perhaps the stupidest argument I've ever heard.

Will Harry Reid Use "The Nuclear Option" on Filibuster?

Image from source, TPM

I'm not Harry Reid's biggest fan. Oh, sure, I've voted for him. Three times. But that is only because he was always better than the alternative. He was staggeringly better than his last opponent, Sharron Angle. That she even got close in the election just proves how often Reid irritates Democrats. Fortunately enough of us saw that we couldn't let that happen, and voted for him again.

What he does is get our hopes up. It's no wonder he was a boxer, because he can really get you in his corner, pulling for him. Give 'em hell, Harry! And every once in a while he lands a punch. More often he pulls them, or doesn't swing at all. It's infuriating. So it was with filibuster reform. After the last Senate filibustered damn near everything in a fruitless quest to prevent a second Obama term, Reid threatened to change the rules. To maybe make Senators actual stand in the chambers, talking for hours on end, if they wanted to throw a wrench into the works. Or maybe just make the process more difficult. Reid even extended "day one" of Senate business to keep the option around for a while longer. Then he welched.

Now, he's dangling that carrot again. And I'm in his corner again. I don't have boundless faith that he'll do it. But I'm rooting for him. Dammit.

[Excerpt]

Reid Threatens Filibuster Reform With Nuclear Option 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) threatened in his most explicit terms yet to use the so-called nuclear option to weaken the filibuster if Republicans keep blocking judicial and other nominees from coming to a vote. . .

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

In Case You Missed It: Lawrence O'Donnell's Rewrite of Rand Paul's Filibuster

Rand Paul took an additional step toward filling his dad, Ron Paul's shoes by mounting a political stunt of a filibuster this week. One person who was not impressed--to say the least--was MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell. If you'd like to see why, just watch Lawrence's brief introduction, followed by the babble and baffling batshittery that is Rand Paul. In his own words.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rand Paul Ends 13-hour "Filibuster"

Image from source, NY Times

"Filibuster" usually means to talk and talk, and not yield the floor. But it hasn't meant that in the Senate for quite some time, where a Senator doesn't even have to reveal himself to declare the threat of a filibuster, and it's just a done deal. It's kind of pathetic. So, to the rescue is second generation batshit Senator Rand Paul. I'm not opposed to discussion over the CIA's use of drones, that's actually something that needs to be hammered out, and clearer in scope before. . .well, before someone like Rand Paul ever becomes President. So, good on him for the topic, and I guess good on him for the revival of a lost political form (last performed by Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2010).

But Paul in bonkers, after all, and the transcripts of his political theater piece will be unlikely to produce a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. And please, what is that thing on his head?

[Excerpt]

Rand Paul Ends Filibuster Of John Brennan Confirmation After Nearly 13 Hours

A small group of Republicans, led by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, stalled the Senate on Wednesday by waging a nearly 13-hour old-school, speak-until-you-can-speak-no-more filibuster over the government’s use of lethal drone strikes — forcing the Senate to delay the expected confirmation of John O. Brennan to lead the Central Intelligence Agency. . .

Read more at: The New York Times

Unintended Consequences: Recess Appointment Decision Fallout

Image from source, TPM

The decision by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that called some of President Obama's recess appointments unconstitutional could yield a bevy of unintended consequences. For example, Obama is far from the only president who has used the power, which goes back almost 100 years, and notably includes George W. Bush. If the law is upheld by the Supreme Court, it might not only affect appointments made by Obama, but could wreak havoc over dozens of years. Moreover, severely curtailing Obama's power to make such appointments would also apply to the next Republican president. It would be odd indeed for Congress to seize such a massive change of rules right after the reluctance to radically alter the filibuster. This will be interesting to watch.

[Excerpt]

Will Conservative Judges Help Republicans Nullify The Recess Appointment Power?

An expansive Friday decision by a three-judge D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel threatens to cripple two government agencies and significantly limit the president’s power to bypass the Senate confirmation process by making recess appointments. . .

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

Filibuster (Not) Reform

He barely gave 'em heck. Image from source, TPM

I wanted to believe him. At the beginning of the 112th Congress in 2009, we were lead to believe that we might get filibuster reform. After a record number of GOP filibusters in the 111th, Democrats and liberals begged Congress to fix the filibuster; to make a Senator who wanted to block a bill actually get out there and speak. Harry Reid acted as though he might do something about it, but then he didn't. So, the 112th Congress became the most filibusterin'-est Congress in history. They blocked nearly everything, from their own ideas to uncontroversial appointments, their only goal being to thwart Democrats in general and President Obama in specific.

So, this time, frankly, I figured we wouldn't get what we were asking for either. I thought we might get a little taste, but I guessed that Reid was so steeped in the traditions of the Senate, that he wouldn't go for the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-style rule. And even though I turned out to be right, I'm still bummed out about it. The very idea of working on a "deal" with a cretin like Mitch McConnell is very distasteful. Particularly when you know he was anything--hell, everything--but cooperative with Democrats over the last, oh, forever. But it is what it is. Sadly.

[Excerpt]

Senate Approves Modest Changes To Filibuster Rule

In two votes Thursday evening, the Senate overwhelmingly approved changes to the rules of the chamber, including the rules governing the filibuster. The final votes were 78-16 and 86-9. The approval of the changes was a disappointing ending for reformers, who had sought to dramatically weaken the filibuster, which has come to be used in recent years by the Republican minority with a frequency unprecedented in Senate history. . .

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

"Modest" Filibuster Reform Deal Reached?

Give 'em. . .er. . .heck, Harry? Image from HuffPo.

When "filibuster reform" is discussed in the news or the blogosphere, it is usually characterized as, "ending the filibuster." That's not what has been proposed, by any authority I've seen, anyway. What rank-and-file Democrats have wanted is to make the filibuster more difficult. Not--as it has become--routine. We'd really like that if a Senator threatens a filibuster, he has to get down on the floor and filibuster. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-style. Barring that, we just want it to be tougher to do, and impossible to do in secret.

I can't figure out why this is even a problem for Democrats, who are in the majority. Just do it. I know that they're all squishy about what might happen if they one day find themselves in the minority, but why? You're not getting rid of the thing, you're making it tougher. It should be tougher. It's ludicrous how it is being abused. Harry Reid is working on a "deal" with Mitch McConnell? What on earth for? Just do it. Reid is going to have to put on quite the performance if he caved on this one, in order to not have liberals asking for his head.

[Excerpt]

Filibuster Reform: Senators Reportedly Close To Deal On Modest Limits

Senators may be nearing an end to their partisan dispute over curbing unlimited delays called filibusters. Whatever the resolution, it probably won't require filibustering senators to debate on the Senate floor until exhaustion, like the actor Jimmy Stewart did in the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. . ."

Read more at: Huffington Post

Bi-Partisan Filibuster Reform? Really?

Inspiring. Not. Image from source, TPM.

I hope by "bi-partisan" they mean that the Republicans simply feel like they get a place at the table. Because if it means more like "watered-down so as to not to piss off the GOP" I'm so not on board. The Mitch McChinless McConnell Senate has been ridiculously obstructionist for obstruction's sake. It hasn't even been about principles or ideology, it has been flat out, "we don't like the (black) dude in the White House." They don't deserve any undue deference.

[Excerpt]

Dems Entertain Bipartisan Talks For Filibuster Reform

Democrats are conferring with Republican senators about cutting a deal that would still change some of the Senate’s filibuster rules but avoid a showdown that would force Democrats to advance significant reforms on a majority-rules basis. . .

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

Senate Filibusters "Buffett Rule" Despite Broad Support

I think this is something of a new trend. Surely, Congress is not bound by public opinion on all legislation. That would be chaos. But it is odd, when bills like the one to remove Big Oil subsidies fails, even though it has massive support. Or this week's "Buffett Rule" which is just about as popular. The issue has more to do with hyper partisanship, and the now standard over-use of the filibuster in the Senate. In a world where 60 votes are needed to pass anything (and where there are always a couple of wavering Democrats), nothing passes, unless it's something extraordinary. And when you throw in the insanity of a Republican supplication to conservative toady Grover Norquist to never, ever, ever, ever, ever raise taxes, it's just that much worse. Stupid.

Here's the deal, Republicans: you have now set the standard on filibusters. If you take the Senate (shudder), do you expect Democrats to forget that tactic? You need sixty solid votes--no Susan Collinses or Olympia Snowes or Scott Browns--from now on. Stupid.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Republicans Vote Against Middle-Class Tax Cuts, As Expected

I figured I should post the result of the vote, since I've been talking about this issue for a few days. The Senate took a cloture vote on extending the middle-class (below $250,000 per year) Bush era tax cuts. The vote was 53-36, making the Senate rules look even more ridiculous, as that is over two-thirds, which is the intention of the 60-vote threshold.

While I know that right-wing talk radio, FOX "News", Congressional Republicans and the right-wing blogosphere will try to spin this to the GOP advantage, it can't be done without stretching the truth. If the middle-class tax cuts expire--as was always intended, by the way--it will be because Republicans would not vote to extend them. And to term this as "Obama tax hikes" is just a flat-out lie.  Arrrgh. The stupid, it burns.

[Excerpt]

Senate Republicans vote to raise taxes on middle class

. . .Nothing really reflects the absurdity of this debate better than this exchange from the morning's debate between Senators Schumer and Grassley. The Dems argue on facts, the Republicans argue nonsense, and will win the day. On behalf of billionaires. Against the rest of the country. . .

Read more at: Daily Kos

GOP Threatens to Block All Senate Work Over Tax Cuts

Image of Mitch McChinless from source, TPM

So this is different from the way the Senate has done business for four years, how? I suppose the fact that all of the Republican Senators signed the memo, the belief is that they'd be bound by it. So, unless the rich folks get their tax cuts, nothing gets done, not DADT, not unemployment extensions. . .but again, this is different how? They were going to filibuster everything anyway.

Here's what I really don't get. Republicans have put their cards on the table. They want tax cuts for the wealthy--at the expense of everything else--and they don't want unemployed Americans to get relief at Christmas time. Wouldn't you think a healthy chunk of the non-rich, and the unemployed just might be Republican voters? Are they counting on the notoriously short American attention span to let this all fall into the memory hole in 2012? Or will they simply be emboldened, and continue the slash and burn for the next two years? Dunno. But I'll say this, Mitch McConnell is a dick, with no redeeming qualities. Pure and simple. (Hey, had to give Karl Rove something to chew on.)

[Excerpt]

DADT No More? Republicans Threaten To Block All Dem Initiatives


Just hours after Democrats and Republicans agreed to bargain on tax cuts, and fewer hours still after Defense Secretary Robert Gates implored Congress to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell this year, word leaked that Republicans aren't really interested in any of it -- a major repudiation of Gates' authority. . .

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

So How Come When They Filibuster, They Don't Read Aloud All Night?

Given the extraordinary number of filibusters mounted by the GOP over the last four years, a lot of people have been wondering aloud, "Why not make them actually filibuster?" They merely threaten it, and it's done. Why don't they have to read the phone book, and collapse like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? Here's why. . .

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy