A friendly reminder about reconciliation, the filibuster, “nuclear options” and such
By Brendan Loy
None of the political leaders in Washington hold, or care about, the moral high ground when it comes to these sorts of procedural arguments. NONE OF THEM. They’re all hypocrites with respect to such arguments. ALL OF THEM.
The majority always likes majoritarian procedures; the minority always hates them. The minority always likes procedures that preserve minority power; the majority always hates them. When the majority and minority flip, their procedural preferences will flip, too. And then they’ll flip back again. And again. And again.
Any and all arguments that attempt to distract from these core facts — “But judicial nominations are different than legislation! But health care reform is just like tax cuts! … But reconciliation is used all the time! But reconciliation has never been used like this! … But the filibuster has never been used like this, either! And the actual ‘nuclear option’ is way worse than a one-time reconciliation vote! … Besides, you’re more obstructionist than we were! No, you were worse!” etc., etc. — are mere smokescreens designed to fool the rubes into believing there’s some core principle at stake.
THERE IS NO CORE PRINCIPLE AT STAKE. Or, if there is, it’s completely incidental to the arguments being made. Certainly, neither of the combatants in this fight give a flying you-know-what about any core procedural principle. They are just two sides fighting to advance their respective substantive agendas. They do not care about the procedures. To them, the procedures are only a means to an end. Each side cares only cares about one thing: winning.
The End.
| 
Comments on "A friendly reminder about reconciliation, the filibuster, “nuclear options” and such"
31 Responses to “A friendly reminder about reconciliation, the filibuster, “nuclear options” and such”
You must be logged in to comment. (Why?)
Please register with The Living Room Times, or log in using your Facebook, Google, OpenID, Twitter, AOL or Yahoo account, or your existing Living Room Times account.
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:45 pm Mountain Time
Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater, for those who are entertained by these sorts of things. While all such machinations are ultimately cynical political maneuvering, some machinations are certainly better than others, and partisans can – and, really, should – evaluate them as such.
When Bumblerooski State plays Fumblefool Tech tonight in the quarterfinals of the America East-West-North League tournament, one of them will certainly have a better point guard then the other, and the six interested fans will discuss that, and hopefully none of those six will conclude that such comparisons don’t matter, since after all both point guards are merely trying to direct their team’s offense…
March 3rd, 2010 at 1:05 pm Mountain Time
I disagree with the last line, that each side only cares about winning. I believe the Democrats don’t care about winning, they care about getting re-elected above all else. This is proven by the fact that we’re still talking about Health Care with a Democratic majority in both houses and a super-majority in the senate for most of that time. The Democrats don’t have a strong identity and don’t run goal oriented campaigns to pass legislation. The Republicans do all of these things. The Republicans are so organized their party leaders send talking points to all of their most vocal members and news agencies and pundits that spin their side so that everyone is on the same page and repeating the same statements, regardless of truth or substance.
Republicans also sacrifice themselves for the good of the party (not the country), but they get their agenda moving forward and they make things happen. The Democrats just sit around looking like jackasses with their fingers in the air and their eyes on the polls while in the leadership position. While in the minority Democrats just look like deer in the headlights as legislation zips past their incompetent desks as they say they are unable to do anything since they are in the minority.
It’s a really pathetic looking government and system for a person who wants what’s best for this country. I think the majority of Americans are really fed up with our government.
Are we really going to be out of Iraq by August? If anyone knows a troop and has insider information if the forces are being drawn down, can you let me know. I haven’t heard anything about the war in Iraq (other than reviews of THE HURT LOCKER) since Obama said he would bring the troops home by Aug 2010, last year. But I only get my news from television, the internet and newspapers.
March 3rd, 2010 at 1:09 pm Mountain Time
I changed “NO ONE” and “EVERYONE” to a more well-defined “NONE OF THEM” and “ALL OF THEM,” to avoid literalist interpretations. Certainly there are some people who care about procedural stuff (including me!). They just aren’t usually the ones yelling the most loudly about them at any given time.
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:14 pm Mountain Time
Brendan – the difference is in *how* each side defines “winning” …
And, for many of us, it *does* make a difference in how each side goes about what they feel they need to do to win …
And, historically, the difference is also in which side introduces the particular tactics and techniques …
As an example of the first one … Dubya considered it “winning” for the country and most of the planet when he decided to go in and clean out Saddam Hussein – and he didn’t put his own career first, nor did he put party first … he understood the need to get rid of the influence of Hussein on world terrorism (as well as the desirability of getting rid of someone who could gas villages of his own citizens) …
As another example of the first one … Obama apparently considers it “winning” to not merely passively, yet actively to throw away the NATO Alliance … it certainly isn’t helping this country for him to do so … I suspect he believes he is putting his own career forward … I, howver, now believe that November this year is going to be a big shock for him …
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:16 pm Mountain Time
I haven’t heard anything about the war in Iraq (other than reviews of THE HURT LOCKER) since Obama said he would bring the troops home by Aug 2010, last year. But I only get my news from television, the internet and newspapers.
Then you haven’t heard Joe “Iraq Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration” Biden.
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:41 pm Mountain Time
Sandy, your perception of the GOP’s solidarity is flattering but not as accurate as I wish it was. Your complaint brings to mind the old adage, “I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat.” Except that adage is much less accurate these days since the Democrats have largely purged Southern conservatives.
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:41 pm Mountain Time
Alasdair, Obama quite obviously didn’t “put his own career first, nor did he put party first,” when he decided to prioritize health-care reform — which everyone knows, and has always known, is an incredibly different subject to tackle, politically, carrying tremendous risk — during his first year in office. Whether or not you agree with his position, it’s clear he did it because he “considered it ‘winning’ for the country” to reform what he considers a broken health-care system. It would have been far easier, politically, to take on a set of less demanding issues, and while he and his party would still be in a fair amount of political trouble (because the economy sucks, and people always hate incumbents when the economy sucks), they probably wouldn’t be facing a potential 1994-like Armageddon in November. This was a known risk coming in, but Obama decided to do it anyway. I’m not asking you to consider him a hero for this, but if you’re going to tout Bush’s decision to start a war (something that — unlike tackling the unwieldly, explosive, easily-demagogued bohemoth that is health-care reform — usually increases, rather than decreasing, a president’s approval ratings, BTW) as proof that he puts country before self, I can certainly do the same. (If anything, Bush deserves the sort of credit you’re offering for trying to tackle Social Security, which had many of the same obvious pitfalls as Obama’s HCR effort.)
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:43 pm Mountain Time
P.S. By the way, I have no doubt that Bush thought the Iraq War was genuinely the right thing to do. (As did I!) I’m not suggesting otherwise. You, however, are suggesting that Obama is motivated primarily by political factors, rather than by a genuine belief that he’s pursuing correct policies. Unfortunately, your argument is irrational under the circumstances. If Obama wanted to chart a politically motivated “safe” course, his first year would’ve looked a helluva lot different.
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:43 pm Mountain Time
Powerline captures my thoughts exactly:
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:14 pm Mountain Time
Agreed !
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:17 pm Mountain Time
I can’t say whether Bush thought the Iraq War was right or good for America or the world, I can only look at the concrete facts. The world opposed going to war with Iraq. The UN opposed going to war with Iraq. Today, the majority of the world and America believes going to war with Iraq was a mistake. The reason for going to war with Iraq was because Hussein had WMD and would use them against the US. That was not true, Iraq did not have WMD. According to Colin Powell and George Tenet, the presentation to the UN security council to argue for the war was filled with deceptions, half-truths, and out-dated data. The people and corporations that funded and supported Bush’s campaigns became more wealthy as a direct result of having started the war with Iraq.
There are too many negatives for America and the world associated with the Iraq War and too many benefits for the American corporations and close business associates of the Bush Administration to believe that going to war with Iraq was done for the benefit of America above all other motivations.
March 3rd, 2010 at 5:10 pm Mountain Time
Brendan, this article is far too subtle for me to parse out your meaning. You need to start arguing more emphatically. Otherwise, nobody will ever be able to figure out what side your on.
March 3rd, 2010 at 5:11 pm Mountain Time
I wanted “you’re” there, not your. Now I know how Sarah Palin’s retard child must feel.
March 3rd, 2010 at 5:12 pm Mountain Time
Also, I broke the rule about how prepositions are not good things to end a sentence on.
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:48 pm Mountain Time
Weird to revisit the meme (courtesy of Alasdair) that Saddam needed to be eliminated because he gassed his citizens. Alasdair’s not the only one to float that idea, but its the first time I’ve encountered it in the “America tortures, er, waterboards, er, enhanced interrogates” era. (Quick aside: I supported removing Saddam, but not for the churchladyish, “he was a bad bad man!” reason. Back to the point).
As Alasdair surely knows, being a worldly Euro fellow and all, the villagers Saddam gassed were restive Kurds in the north of Iraq. As Alasdair also knows, those villagers would have not thought twice about clawing Saddam’s eyes out with their bare hands, then leaving him in agony while they went off and established their separate Kurdish nation. Which doesn’t justify gassing them, right????
Of course, if there were an ethnic group in America that were hell-bent on the destruction of the state, fully dedicated to the death and overthrow of the President and the government, any intervention short of gassing them would doubtlessly prompt ol’ VP Dick to show up on Fox News and lament what a sissy President O is. For his part, President O would end up chewing his lip, feeling bad and then not only gassing them but also kicking them several times as they lay dying, just to prove that he was not a sissy Democrat.
To be clear, I don’t endorse gassing innocents. Or waterboarding them.
This is a strange time in America.
March 4th, 2010 at 7:57 am Mountain Time
As I thought about the point above a bit more, it occured to me that there is a huge difference between waterboarding a suspected terrorist and gassing an entire village that happens to house several traitors to the (Sunni) state. That village has old women, and children…
…then I remembered the infamous Yoo memo, which allegedly stated that it was okay to smash the testicles of the small child of a suspected terrorist, if that helps further national security goals viz a viz said alleged terrorist. Surely if you can smash the guy’s small child’s testicles, you can gas his village, yes?
All just a way to express a deep, Andrew-Sullivan-ish concern with where the Cheneyization of foreign policy is taking America. For me the torture debate in the US has been largely cartoonish, and as the above illustrates, these policy developments the US seems to have casually walked into are way more serious than we collectively seem to be taking them.
March 4th, 2010 at 2:46 pm Mountain Time
Jazz – do you have the URL for the text of “the infamous Yoo memo, which allegedly stated that it was okay to smash the testicles of the small child of a suspected terrorist, if that helps further national security goals viz a viz said alleged terrorist.” ?
It remains a fact that the single best justification for removing Saddam Hussein was stopping his support of terrorists around the planet …
Close second was his repeated breaking of the Gulf War I Cease-Fire …
Third, preventing him gassing any more villages, whether Iraqi citizens or not …
Fourth, probably, to get rid of any WMDs that pretty much everyone, including his own Generals, believed he had …
(I don’t remember what the reamining half-dozen or more reasons were …)
March 4th, 2010 at 2:46 pm Mountain Time
(or even – the remaining) … (sigh)
March 4th, 2010 at 3:41 pm Mountain Time
Alasdair – I don’t have the Yoo cite, my familiarity with it is based on hearing it referenced second-hand, several times. This means it could be an urban myth, for all I personally know, and that’s why I couched my comment with “allegedly”. I don’t think the “testicle crushing” issue bears all that much on whether America, post GWB, has changed its stance on torture – and come to resemble regimes we formerly despised.
(IIRC, the village of Kurds Saddam gassed was allegedly the home not only of restive insurgents, but in fact several that had actively plotted to assassinate Saddam, being busted before they could pull it off. I’m not saying I believe that story; this is the same guy who justified a destructive war with Iran based on the fact that the Iranians allegedly tried to off Tariq Aziz. Tariq Aziz. Please!
But if there had been an enclave in the US that actively called for the downfall of the US government, and some of them were caught attempting to kill the President, I think we know what would happen to said enclave in the post-GWB era).
BTW – the best reason to eliminate Saddam was because he had all along plotted to become a modern Saladin, the leader of a great Arab empire, which intended to stick its finger in the modern world’s collective eye. Most people forget this, but Saddam’s rise to fame occured in the early 70s, when he coordinated the OPEC oil shock from his seat as Iraq’s Oil Minister.
For all the tripe about 70 virgins in heaven and other fantastic stuff that is served to the gullible masses, superterrorism is all about power. And no one plotted to obtain it, in destructive ways, quite like Saddam.
March 4th, 2010 at 4:01 pm Mountain Time
Saddam was a horrible person and did horrible things. However good the reasons Jazz or Alasdair mentions to remove him were, the bottom line is thats NOT what was sold to the American people or Congress. What was sold was the idea that Saddam had, or would imminently have weapons of mass destruction which could be used against us. This was not true, but beyond that there was little to know reason based on the evidence available to the President and his advisors at the time to believe it was true, yet thats what they told us anyway and in the end lead to a prolonged, expensive, and poorly managed at the beggining war.
If Americans had bought in to the Iraq invasion based on genuinely presented information and/or alternative arguments as to why it should be done that woudl be a different story. Hell even I was supportive of the war effort at first because I foolishly believed that not even President Bush, whom i disagreed with on many issues would be so cold and calous as to lead us into war based on known faulty information, putting the lives of our own soldiers unnecessarilly at risk in addition to burdening us with the cost of war. Unfortunately for our nation, that belief was mistaken as he did just that. Or worse, he was so incompetent that he DIDN’T know the intel was flawed and went ahead anyway.
March 4th, 2010 at 4:33 pm Mountain Time
Silly David !
Just cuz the MSM offered to sell *you* on the reason for Gulf War II being WMDs and nothing but WMDs, those who were paying attention at the time realised that there were more important things going on … check out the relevant State of the Union address that year … I believe it listed 11 things in support of Gulf War II … so you bought the MSM’s story – it happens … hopefully, you will be less gullible in future …
On a relevant note, in an entirely different direction … an excellent quote from Instapundit, I believe … (I know, I know, David, *you* believe what the MSM has been telling you about the Budget Deficit, too) …
“Personally, I’d like to see some Congressmen forced to testify before a panel of car dealers, about the budget deficit’s Sudden Acceleration Problem.”
March 4th, 2010 at 5:51 pm Mountain Time
Alasdair, I’m well aware that the address listed many issues. What you appear to be unaware of is that the drumbeat from the administration was WMD WMD WMD. I remember because IT was what *I* also pointed out in my discussions with friends who were against the war. Since you are either too stupid or blind to read what I wrote in its entirety, I will point out to you again, I was supportive of President Bush and the war because I believed that he wouldn’t mislead us about such important issues, and that if the President of the United States said “Saddam has or will soon have WMD’s which present an imminent threat to us and our allies” that the evidence was overwhelmingly supportive of this.
You can live in your little right wing echo chamber where everything you don’t like is made up by the MSM conspiracy, but those of us who live in the real world and listen to the facts know you are full of it. WMD’s were the primary and overwhelming way in which the war was sold to congress and the American people. Because if it had been true, going to war WAS the right thing to do. Unfortunately it wasn’t true, adn the administration knew it. You can ignore that all you want, and I know you will because you don’t have an intellectually honest bone in your blind partisan body, but it doesn’t change anything. Perhaps I am being too hard on you, maybe your memory is jsut starting to go.
March 4th, 2010 at 6:17 pm Mountain Time
Joe Biden, circa April 2007:
Joe Biden, circa February 2010:
I have no interest in reliving the same goddamn argument about the Iraq war for the 500 bazillionth time on this blog; surely we all have access to the archives and can relive the perpetual disagreements if we’re so inclined, so no need to rehash them here.
So whatever we think about Bush, WMDs, Saddam, and the war, let’s at least all be in agreement about who fought against continuing the war and tried to withdraw and ensure defeat vs. who fought to implement a surge and find a way to victory. And here we have Joe Biden, perfectly representative of the former, now trying to claim credit for the fruits of the latter’s political sacrifices!
Surely even a partisan like Sandy or David K could be honest enough to call out its own side for falsely representing its role in securing a relatively free and stable Iraq!
March 4th, 2010 at 6:40 pm Mountain Time
Yoo on children’s testicles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz01hN9l-BM
March 4th, 2010 at 6:53 pm Mountain Time
Also, there’s no real reason to assume the surge worked. Sure, there’s a correlation between the surge and decreased violence, but we all know that correlation does not necessarily mean causation.
So instead when we actually attempt to do some quantifiable investigation we come up with a much different picture: that sectarian violence stopped because it had largely run its course:
http://www.envplan.com/epa/editorials/a41200.pdf
But, in the interest of being non-partisan, Joe Biden is an idiot.
March 4th, 2010 at 7:33 pm Mountain Time
pthread, I appreciate the conciliatory concession, but even granting your remark that the surge didn’t necessarily cause the decrease in violence — that the violence had simply run its course — the original judgment still stands, since Joe Biden and the Democratic Party had zero to do with the violence running its course.
If anything, accepting the proposition that all that is needed is simply to wait for sectarian violence to run its course to achieve peace and stability is an argument in favor of Bush and the GOP’s goal of staying the course vs. cutting and running. By the logic of the given hypothesis, Bush’s decision to fire Rumsfeld, put Petraeus in charge of Iraq, and surge the troops were all wrong because what he should’ve done instead was just stood pat until things quieted down.
March 4th, 2010 at 9:58 pm Mountain Time
Sorry AMLTrojan, but whether or not the surge worked is sort of like arguing about whether or not a certain lasso trick works to catch a horse after you made the initial mistake of letting them out of the barn. Sure its good that you caught that horse, but you still made the initial mistake. There was always the option of not invading at all. Even after the invasion the argument that we only had two options, sticking it out til we won, or cutting and running framed the discussion in false terms. The question should have been, “What is best for the US and its interests”. If the answer to that was “leaving Iraq” even IF it meant that things might be bad over there for a while, or its what the terrorists wanted, etc. is irrelevant to that discussion, or perhaps not irrelevant but weighted very low.
Let me give you an example. Lets say you believed that Sarah Palin was the best choice for President in the next election, that her leadership and policies would put America in the best possible position. If the terrorists came out and said that Sarah Palin’s election would be the best thing for terrorism for whatever reasons, would that mean your decision was wrong? Would you support her opponent just because they said that? In essence thats what the “stay the course vs. cut and run” argument is framed as. If we leave we are giving the terrorists what they want, so we can’t leave, no matter how badly it goes for us or whether or not its in OUR best interests to stay.
March 5th, 2010 at 7:42 am Mountain Time
the original judgment still stands, since Joe Biden and the Democratic Party had zero to do with the violence running its course.
Neither did the Bush administration. That’s the point. It occurred without relevance to what we did. (Well, what we did at that point. Obviously we had a part in allowing the conditions to form for this to happen in the first place).
By the logic of the given hypothesis, Bush’s decision to fire Rumsfeld, put Petraeus in charge of Iraq, and surge the troops were all wrong because what he should’ve done instead was just stood pat until things quieted down.
Rumsfeld’s firing had little to do with the surge. Other than that, personnel changes have little to do with whether or not the surge was the correct thing to do.
If anything, accepting the proposition that all that is needed is simply to wait for sectarian violence to run its course to achieve peace and stability is an argument in favor of Bush and the GOP’s goal of staying the course vs. cutting and running.
First of all, you are conflating two issues. Whether we surge and whether we leave are two completely different arguments.
Sorry AMLTrojan, but whether or not the surge worked is sort of like arguing about whether or not a certain lasso trick works to catch a horse after you made the initial mistake of letting them out of the barn.
You are so weird sometimes.
March 5th, 2010 at 12:49 pm Mountain Time
I think its a good analogy, not weird at all.
March 6th, 2010 at 12:31 pm Mountain Time
Rumsfeld’s firing had little to do with the surge. Other than that, personnel changes have little to do with whether or not the surge was the correct thing to do.
Rumsfeld was the chief proponent of a limited footprint; the concept of a troops build-up ran counter to how he architected the whole war. So yes, the decision to surge and the decision to fire Rumsfeld are intimately correlated.
Beyond that detail, you totally missed the point. I granted you the hypothesis about the sectarian violence “running its course”, and pointed out that, if true, the wisest course would’ve been for the Bush administration to maintain status quo until things simmered down, and that whether we surged or maintained status quo, both were more appropriate options than cutting and running, which would have entailed the risk of creating a power / security vacuum and altering the course of the sectarian violence in a negative manner.
The bottom line is this: whether or not the surge is the key factor behind the decline in sectarian violence, the Bush administration was on the right side of things in staying in Iraq until the job was completed, and the Democrats were on the wrong side of things for trying to withdraw before the violence had been reduced or “run its course”.
March 6th, 2010 at 7:27 pm Mountain Time
Rumsfeld was the chief proponent of a limited footprint; the concept of a troops build-up ran counter to how he architected the whole war. So yes, the decision to surge and the decision to fire Rumsfeld are intimately correlated.
I think you “misunderestimate” the ire that Rumsfeld had drawn on himself. Many in the Bush administration were against him long before there was any thought of a surge.
Beyond that detail, you totally missed the point.
No, I made my point, and you seemed to have accepted it, great.
To move onto another point you have injected into the conversation, whether or not “cutting and running” was appropriate, the difficulty with this is we have to ask exactly what you mean by that. Leaving immediately? Yes, that would have been a terrible idea. A slow withdraw? A perfect idea. There would have been no power vacuum. To claim that there would have been misunderstands the nature of what Iraq was/is.
Allow me to digress and complain about that, actually. This seems to be a big problem with people discussing Afghanistan and Iraq. They do not understand that the nature of the two conflicts are remarkably different. The biggest problem in Iraq was sectarian violence. The biggest problem in Afghanistan is a true insurgency against the government.
But back to your comments, “the Bush administration was on the right side of things in staying in Iraq until the job was completed, and the Democrats were on the wrong side of things for trying to withdraw before the violence had been reduced or ‘run its course’.”
No. The problem with this view point is that it’s obsessed with “winning”. We’re going to be leaving Iraq soon. But Iraq is not a peaceful place. So we have not “won”. Yet in your mind we have. Why? Because we waited out the violence? That’s essentially what you are saying. Not to mention that it disregards the fact that if we’d implemented one of the most popular Democratic plans which called for drawing down “most” troops by the end of 2008, we’d likely be in the same situation. By the end of 2008 violence had lowered to levels essentially similar to what they are today.
So why is it okay to leave today if it wasn’t in 2008?