When Clinton was president, NYT disliked the filibuster. When Bush was president, they liked the filibuster.
March 29, 2005
A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the “nuclear option” in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton’s early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it’s obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide.
The New York Times > Opinion > Editorial: Walking in the Opposition’s Shoes
Now that Obama is president, they don’t like the filibuster.
Democracy Returns to the Senate
In a 52-to-48 vote that substantially altered the balance of power in Washington, the Senate changed its most infuriating rule and effectively ended the filibuster on executive and judicial appointments. From now on, if any senator tries to filibuster a presidential nominee, that filibuster can be stopped with a simple majority, not the 60-vote requirement of the past
The New York Times also says that Obama mis-spoke about keeping your healthcare plan.
Reblogged this on The Firewall.
democrazies are famous for this…
changing the rules when they are in power
….and are not smart enough to realize they won’t be in power forever
and then raising hell about republicans using their changes against them
“When Bush was president, they didn’t like the filibuster.”
Little typo, I think. Didn’t? Did? “When Bush was president, they did like the filibuster.”
As a Canadian, my understanding of the US political system… meaning a “Republic”… is as alien to me as is communism. Not to be disrespectfull. I live in a “Parliamentary Democracy”. A different system.
I am a strong federalist, disliking minority government. I believe in one direction even if the direction is not to my liking. Go big or go home. In Canada we have 3 (sometimes more) relevant political parties. At NO time, in Canada, do politicians vote across party lines. To do so would mean expulsion from the party! Only one exception… a called for (rarely) ‘Free Vote’. Called for by the ruling government, of course!
The ONE thing I admire most of the American 2 party system is that a 60-40 agreement must be reached. The ABSOLUTE difference being in the MORE than 2 relevant political parties option. Whereas in a parliamentary democracy only requires a cross party compromise in rare situations (minority multi-party government rule), the American Constitution makes it an inevitability, to reach an agreement between diverse views.
I think the key to surviving governments is to limit their power so that all they are voting on are things like picking up the garbage and catching stray dogs.
Of course .. this goes for both parties. They don’t like the filibuster when THEY are the majority, and it doesn’t matter the party. Both parties have flip-flopped on this issue for the past 225 years. The saddest part is however, the Democrats have now blown away 225 years of president by using the “Nuclear Options” … Despicable indeed. Democrats are the lowest scum of the earth.
On the brighter side however, I am in agreement with Krauthammer on this issue in that the stupid Democrats are likely going to rue the day when they did this. If Republicans take the Senate during midterms, which I suspect is more likely than not at this point, Democrats are going to be in deep shit, especially if we elect a Republican president in 2016.
Personally however, there is a reason for the filibuster, and I don’t like the idea of either party being free from the filibuster.
“REID, CLINTON, OBAMA, BIDEN ALL OPPOSED ‘NUCLEAR OPTION’ EIGHT YEARS AGO”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/21/Harry-Reid-Hillary-Clinton-Barack-Obama-Joe-Biden-all-opposed-Reid-s-Senate-nuclear-option-eight-years-ago
We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.
The obvious result of this “nuclear option” is that judges will be appointed to back the environmentalist extremist agenda. That agenda includes unnecessary taxes and regulatory burdens on both individuals and businesses, at a time when we can least afford it.
All of Obama’s environmental regulations can be reversed by executive order by next President. You’re probably right about the reason, as Obama certainly sees “climate change” as his only shot at some kind of “legacy,” but Obama is really dumb and doesn’t understand that what is DONE by executive order can also be UNDONE by executive order.
Surely the Democrats know the way things are going they’re highly likely to lose their majority in the Senate in a year. Maybe they’re going for the nuclear option to appoint as many judges as possible, now, before their drubbing in ’14, and they plan to get it back in opposition with the coordinated efforts of the so-called fourth estate, the bureaucracy, and the judiciary.
The Insane Left is at WAR with Republicans and any who oppose their actions or positions in public debate; they have been at war throughout Obama’s reign as “righteous overlord”. Their reasoning is a pretense, a lie (and an unending stream of lies), a thin veneer over their actual hate and disdain, which brook no compromise with those they consider morally and rationally inferior. And the Republicans have also been too concerned with their political agendas, for many years, over the needs and individual rights of the American people. Watching Democrats and Republicans at war is just like watching Sunnis and Shiites at war in the Muslim part of the world–at some point, one doesn’t want either side to “win”, just that both sides should destroy one another to a man, if possible and as soon as possible, so that sane, responsible adults can replace these children and their “Lord Of The Flies”, “nuclear option”, behavior.
But it’s not just the politicians who are children today, at this time in human history. Who elects–and re-elects–children, if not other children? This is all part of a general testing, worldwide, of a mankind that has been falling back, into an all-too-easy reliance upon false dogmas, and past-but-not-forgotten-nor-forgiven, perceived “injustices” of every kind.
“so that sane, responsible adults can replace these children”
Who are these mythical people you talk about?
Rasmussen reports that 55% disagree with the rule change.