dayman

Thoughts? Personally I think it's rather ridiculous for McConnell to (with a straight face) be so opposed to this and pretend it isn't a short sighted party tactic on his part and claim that is what it is on Reid. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/full-speed-ahead-on-filibuster-reform/2012/11/26/69a38b5a-380f-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_blog.html On the Senate floor today, Harry Reid offered the clearest confirmation yet that he will move forward with filibuster reform at the start of the new Congress. He confirmed he is proposing to “do away with filibusters on the motion to proceed,” which was already known. He added that under proposed reforms, Senators who want to filibuster will have to “stand up and talk about it.” That means Reid supports the “talking filibuster,” the proposal to force filibustering out into the open — on the theory that this will make it politically more difficult. There’s some debate over whether the latter proposal is likely to be effective. Jonathan Bernstein has argued that it’s absurd to imagine that Republicans would balk at publicly holding the floor. That aside, now that there will be a massive spin war over the meaning of reform — Mitch McConnell railed today that Dems are planning a “naked power grab” — it’s worth reiterating that there is a set of actual facts about GOP filibustering and the Dem response to it that shouldn’t get lost in all the false equivalence BS we’re certain to hear: 1) The extent of GOP filibustering is unprecedented. This chart shows that cloture motions (a rough measure of filibustering) suddenly spiked during the Obama years. Yes, they also spiked in 2007-2008, but according to Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein, the vast majority of those filibusters were mounted by Republicans, presumably to block legislation designed to embarrass George W. Bush. (Indeed, the motions to end filibusters during that period were filed mostly by Dems.) 2) The nature of GOP filibustering is unprecedented. Ornstein says this is true in two ways: First, in the extensive blockading of what used to be considered routine Senate business. And second, much of the filibustering is part of a concerted party strategy. “You’re not just looking at filibusters done by rogue senators or factions, like southern Democrats in the 1950s,” says Ornstein. “It’s the first time we’ve had a wide range of filibustering by a whole party.” 3) Filibuster reform would not do away with the minority’s ability to filibuster. The “talking filibuster” reform and the nixing of the filibuster on the motion to proceed would only make it harder to use procedural tactics, under cover of darkness, for the explicit purpose of stalling the Upper Chamber’s business. The minority would still be able to block the will of a simple majority on the vote to end debate. These are not very meaningful restrictions on the “rights” of the minority. At any rate, now that Reid has made such a vocal push, it’s hard to imagine that Dems won’t move forward on day one of the new session to change the rules with a simple majority vote. Looks like it’s on. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/filibuster-reform-mitch-mcconnell_n_2193840.html WASHINGTON -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned senators Monday to oppose the growing momentum for dramatic reform of the filibuster, saying, "It may be the most important thing you ever do." Use of the filibuster to stall legislation -- when the minority party refuses to end debate on a bill unless 60 senators vote to do so -- has escalated in recent years, rising from a rarity to the norm. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has been signaling his readiness to curb the tactic, often noting that he has faced 385 filibusters during his leadership while Lyndon Johnson had to deal with only one when he ran the Senate. A number of proposals are under consideration, including a bill sponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and others that would essentially require an old-fashioned "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"-style filibuster: Minority opponents of a measure would actually have to take the floor and hold forth for hours, rather than simply signal their intent to obstruct. Making such a rule change in the Senate would normally require a 67-vote majority. But when the Senate comes back into session in January, Democrats could use a set of procedural rules often called the "nuclear option" and pass the changes with a simple 51-vote majority. It is that possibility that McConnell targeted in his Senate floor speech, saying such a move would be a pure power grab that would only make partisanship worse in the upper chamber. "The American people sent us here to be their voice. They understand that those voices can at times become loud and argumentative, but they also hope we can disagree without being disagreeable," McConnell said. "What they do not expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet," he said. "The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse." None of the proposals for filibuster reform have actually called for ending the practice, and lawmakers from small states are especially wary of giving up the ability to check the majority. Some reformers have suggested ending the filibuster for procedural actions like motions to start debate and motions to appoint senators to conference committees, which work out differences in legislation passed by the two chambers. McConnell, while not specifically addressing whether the filibuster needs to be fixed, has said that any fix must be based on bipartisan discussion. Using the nuclear option, he said Monday, would be an attack on the entire country. "Let's be clear: The rules change that's being proposed is not an affront to me or to the Republican Party. It's an affront to the American people," McConnell said. "It's an affront to the people who sent me and the other 46 Republicans here to represent them in the Senate, but whose voices would be shut out if the majority leader and this cohort of short-sighted Senate sophomores have their way and permanently change this body." A Democratic Senate staffer whose boss backs a rule change argued that Republicans have already permanently altered the Senate by obstructing just about everything. "It's frankly unbelievable after this historic abuse of Senate rules that Republicans would cry foul over attempts to make the Senate work," said the aide, who spoke anonymously because the boss is still negotiating details of a reform proposal. "Senator McConnell had the chance to work with Senator Reid to bring bills to the floor under the gentlemen's agreement of 2011, and he failed to do so." The "gentlemen's agreement" refers to Reid's pledge to abide by normal Senate rules as long as McConnell stuck to a more traditional wielding of the filibuster. McConnell and other Republicans have argued that they have to filibuster so much because Reid does not let the Senate take votes on their proposed amendments. The minority leader argued Monday that the Democrats' efforts to get things moving again will only make matters worse. "In the name of 'efficiency,' their plan is to use a heavy-handed tactic that would poison party relations even more," McConnell said. "In the name of 'efficiency,' they would prevent the very possibility of compromise and threaten to make the disputes of the past few years look like pillow fights." McConnell pointed to Reid's past comments opposing the nuclear option, which Reid once described as "breaking the rules to change the rules." However, that was before Reid had to deal with nearly 400 filibusters.

It's funny how they announce cease fire at a certain time. I would hate to get blown up at 1:30. Anyway Truman said peace is hell. So maybe all is hell

Plenty of opportunity for them to create an exchange of their own in line with regulations that differs from other states for a reason that helps the state. If these governors want to just say no for political reasons, then that's between them and their constituency.

They're better off than GAza by any standard.

B/c it is cutting of your nose to spite your face. "I hate Federal overreach. I think you are overreaching despite the opportunity to tailor the exchange to my state within the framework. Therefore, I will not do anything and I will just allow you to set up the entire thing however you want. I somehow win now." It's childish and honestly if they really believe in what they are saying and aren't being political then they are neglecting their duty to implement the exchange in a customized way for their local state.

They should let the West Bank free and just keeping bombing Gaza to prove a point. Act right first.

Well you keep going on as if to excuse Hamas missiles as somehow justified, understandable, or insignificant. Seems to me they are non of those things.

I don't want to set up the exchange. So you set up my exchange. You go girl.

NoJustice what are you ultimately getting at here. Palestine/Israel conflict aside (for which I think most reasonable people believe a 2 state solution is really the only way to go)...you feel Hamas are righteous people?

Let us not forget what that blockade is there to begin with.

So bitter, so angry.

hehe...how long will you continue to wish success upon Romney...accept the loss...and accept that Romney was always the weak candidate he was despite his little 3 weeks where he lied to himself and thought he could be president....if you want a great conservative president run a great conservative candidate.

Well all I can say is if China fires on some Japanese carrier over those goat islands immediately after that Israel will strike Iran and level Gaza ... idk what will happen next but I think most 17 year old kids on the CC track will be more a man than I am afterwords.

That's pretty crazy. Anyway...w/ the tweeting of taunts and videos back and forth....neither side even cares about perception anymore. They're just going to go at it. Cease fire ain't happening. Israel probably going to use this as an opportunity to crush Palestine a little more then point at Iran for supplying arms and slide this thing that way when the time comes.

Wow. Too much drink sad. Not to get political but too much weed would not have a man in a creek dead. In all honesty though...this is very sad. I think this is at least the 3rd drunk person to die at an NFL game this year by my count. I know I read a story of some guy dying at a game just weeks ago (I think it was an NFC east game can't remember exactly basically a guy falling down a 30 ft over an edge)

Honestly though for people who do not know, it's not a pure bio...it mainly tracks the passage of the 13th amendment .. the debate around it...the horse trading to get the votes...and Lincolns involvement in all that including possibly delaying quicker end to the civil war in order to make sure it passes (although it is unlikely the supposed "negotiated peace" would have been acceptable anyway). Well worth the watch. Several great performances in there btw besides just Day-Lewis...truly a star studded movie and about 19th century legislative politics.

Lincolns body double is shot and he goes to the middle east.

Thought it was very good. Would be interested to hear others thoughts. By my account, Day-Lewis has handed in yet another stunning character performance.

The end of the series is basically them grouping together and buying McKinely, and putting Teddy as his VP so he is powerless. Then of course, some anarchist in Buffalo kills McKinely, Teddy takes over, and breaks up their trusts.

Chan is the perfect combo where he is conservative in general but goes 5 wide and fails on 3rd and short every time. In any event I do think he gets more out of this talent than most would. Deal with it until we get a new QB.

I have been drinking...but I do not understand how that makes sense right now...

Officially the face of the franchise now

Miami played well..they can defend the run ok CJ played well.

Still best we have...and good enough honestly if we get a slot guy and some lbs

resign this man