In a word cloud of conversations about the filibuster, the biggest names would almost certainly be Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), the two outspoken Democratic defenders of the Senate rule who ensure its continued existence, to Republicans’ delight.
From the Article:
[“That leaves only the infamous two standing in the way of changing the rule at all (emphasis added).”]
This is problematic. There is too much reporting going in multiple directions (and quoting people like Al Franken and Norm Ornstein) to challenge the “at all” part of this statement.
And, for me, since we are in the negotiating stage (behind closed doors, etc.) all this may be rendered moot in the near future.
In any event, I do not see Manching going through the efforts to tinker (and not as bad as feared) with the S1 Bill all for the ultimate fate of it going down.
"“No, I think that — I agree with Thomas Jefferson [who] said, you know, it’s the saucer where things cool,” Leahy said…
Luv ya, Pat, but nobody drinks out of saucers anymore. I mean, how long do things have to cool off in the Senate…especially with McConnell’s way of “cooling” things off ?
That’s because Ben Nelson (Manchin) and Blanche Lincoln (Sinema) think that watering down what could be popular policy it will somehow endear them to either Republicans or democrats?
Fortunately, I live in Arizona and I can work to oust that performative bitch in 2024.
I’m not sure I buy it. For instance, did anyone speak to Sen. Feinstein? And when I say “speak to”, I mean the senator herself, not what her staff says.
Poor Sinema, she’s so broke she needed to repurpose a Nazi flag to make her dress.
It’s an empty saucer if you can’t even open debate because of Repugnicant fuckery.
A bunch of them would like to see it “reformed” - i.e., a talking filibuster. I imagine that would include Feinstein, Tester, etc. Why the hell we can’t do that now is beyond me.
1 day ago · He has, for example, suggested making it “more painful” to use by returning to the “ talking filibuster .” Forbes reports that Manchin recently told a group of donors he was open to lowering …
Jun 17, 2021 · Manchin also appeared to say on the call that he was open to forcing a " talking filibuster ," which he suggested earlier in the year but then appeared to retract.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/in-private…
Jun 16, 2021 · When Manchin raised the possibility this spring of changing the Senate rules to require a “ talking filibuster ,” I asked him whether he would be willing to implement such a change via a simple …
More than half-seriously: a talking filibuster would pretty much preclude the reactionaries from using it for obstruction.
Really, a party without the work ethic to write legislation certainly doesn’t have the stick-to-itness to sustain a talking filibuster.
My recollection is that in the past year they already fumbled a legislative tactic that only required that they be present in the chamber.
Til Hell freezes over.
Jefferson might have said that, but George Washington said it first. Indeed, in the eyes of all the Constitution-framers (who did not include Jefferson–he was in Paris as U.S. minister to France), the main purpose of the Senate was to cool down the supposedly hot-headed impulses of the democratically-elected House.
Maybe it’s just me, but I bust out laughing seeing “reality”, “Manchin”, and “Sinema” in the same sentence.
I think we all agree that McConnell would nuke the filibuster in a second if republicans win the Senate. Even if there was no reason other than for sport – just to show Democrats he could. So the remaining two nincompoops falling on their sword over this matter is just infuriating.
Well, they are resistant to the idea of hard work, but they fucking love talking about how things suck, so it could go either way.
I theek that we had this conversation before (the subject was replacing Pelosi), but if Sinema was successfully primaried, who do you think could do that?
Also, would that person win the '24 general election?
I realize that changing the filibuster or getting rid of it doesn’t take a piece of legislation to be voted on, but wouldn’t it be nice to have its title be “Because Mitch McConnell Obstructs Everything Act”, or “The Reason Why We Can’t Have Nice Things-Because of Mitch McConnell”.
I clicked on your link to that article in The American Spectator, which I never visit, and read the comments. Holy cow! Tell me where those people live so I can avoid them like the plague. I know that sites that lean left have a certain amount/level of vitriol at times, but that gang is WAY over the top. It’s often said that it’s a good idea to visit sites that are the opposite of what your personal views happen to be, but frankly I can see little to no benefit to exposing myself to such people, any more than I’d try to practice being open minded by attending a Klan rally.