Posted on 03/10/2013 9:52:01 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The Washington Post editorial board, Jan. 16, 2013: The editorial is entitled, “Progress in the Senate,” and praises tweaks made to Senate filibuster rules by Sens. Reid and McConnell while also noting the need for further reform. Among reform options, making senators who wish to filibuster actually perform a traditional, talking filibuster:
The Senate’s leaders deserve praise not only for what they did but for how they did it. Instead of jamming more ambitious reforms through on a partisan, simple-majority vote, Mr. Reid hashed them out with Mr. McConnell. In so doing, he offered a rare example of bipartisan accord, dodged the threat of partisan blowback hobbling the Senate and avoided setting a dangerous precedent for minority rights in his chamber. Rules changes typically require 67 votes, an arrangement that Mr. Reid’s Democrats will cherish when they find themselves once again in the minority.
Yes, the filibuster has been abused in recent years, and we would like to see more reform. Forcing lawmakers who would filibuster legislation to speak out on the Senate floor isn’t a bad idea. But these incremental changes are welcome.
The Washington Post editorial board today:
AFTER SEN. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) held the Senate hostage Wednesday in order to warn that American citizens could be targeted by drone strikes on U.S. soil, he was rightly taken to task for gross and irresponsible mischaracterizations of the Obama administration’s policy. We’ve got another complaint: Mr. Paul and his followers are distracting attention from the real issues raised by the administration’s secret warfare.
So, a talking filibuster is either “not a bad idea” in the universe of reform options for what the Washington Post deems an abused Senate rule, or it’s a method for “[holding] the Senate hostage,” depending on the month. Maybe the Washington Post thinks it’s “not a bad idea” to “hold the Senate hostage?”
The Washington Post‘s editorial board has been quite restrained on the subject of filibuster reform over the last 10 years—the filibuster has been abused in the past, but is an important guarantor of minority rights, and should be reformed by senators working to gradually improve processes, not by obliteration or “nuclear” options, is their basic line. The cultivation of that appropriately sober, old-hand take on this perennial issue is damaged by today’s reactionary editorial.
Which, by the way, seems to indicate that no one on the editorial board even listened to more than half an hour of Paul’s filibuster. The Post complains that Paul’s speech distracted from the real issue of lack of transparency in the administration’s use of drones and kill lists on foreign soil— a subject Paul talked about for large chunks of his 13-hour explication. Reason writer Scott Shackford takes on the “baffling” editorial for attacking Paul for not addressing what he repeatedly addressed:
After criticizing Paul for filibustering the administration’s lack of transparency for domestic drone use (and not even believing there’s a lack of transparency), the writer is upset that Paul’s filibuster didn’t draw attention to the administration’s lack of transparency for foreign drone use.
Paul did actually talk quite a bit about the administration’s foreign drone use in his 13-hour filibuster and specifically how the administration’s lack of transparency and method for engaging in strikes had informed his concerns about their use on American soil. Paul brought it up during the very first hour, and he repeated these comments probably four or five times at least. You didn’t have to watch the entire filibuster to grasp Paul’s argument, so the Washington Post really has no excuse for missing his point
The whole thing screams “We agree with Rand Paul….but we don’t wanna!”
Its a start.
What many seemed to have missed that was of equal importance was Ted Cruz and his comments on federal infringement on state power and his expression that its wrong no matter what party is in power.
Cruz specifically spoke of the Bush administration pressuring Texas to defer to the desires of the international community over the death penalty of a particular rapist/murderer.
I have just seen highlights of the Filibuster with snippets of Ron Paul speaking.
RP has really stirred things up.
yeah it was his son actually.
I haven’t heard the media mention it but I watched all day long.
Yeah, I really like it when “Reid and McConnell hash out a problem!” You can be sure that McConnell got “bent over.” Heaven help us, here comes Ashley Judd Mitch, and you have left your testicles somewhere and forgotten where “somewhere” is!
Picked it up from another thread:
Wull need to scroll to the top....tried to correct it....strange way that wite works.
.strange way that site works.
REPUBLICAN INSIDER: “Out With The Old – And In With The New”
*******************************
OK that gets to the start.
When there is a discussion of the “traditional filibuster”, there is almost no mention of the requirement for a quorum to be present. Even during Senator Paul’s filibuster, he did not insist that at least 49 other Senators remain in the Senate chamber while he was speaking. The traditional filibuster can be very difficult on the Senate leadership, especially when they must rely on a large number of old and infirm members to maintain a quorum.
Thanks for that info.
Funny how the Washington Post went all out to take down Nixon. But they won’t do squat to even fairly report this magic negros transgressions.
No wonder they be losing readership like crazy.
The post has simply become a tool for the dems and this obammy puke
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.