However, according to Politico, Democrats are divided on a tactic that would harm the institution of the Senate and could severely backfire on them. “Democrats who have been complaining for two years about Republican obstruction are struggling to unite behind a single filibuster reform plan – and several are expressing reservations that they could set a dangerous precedent if Republicans return to the Senate majority after the 2012 elections. Republican leaders — who have been largely quiet in the debate so far — are planning to step up their attacks and portray any proposed changes in Senate rules as a power grab by Democrats. ‘I think people need to understand that no one is naïve here, and that we have a very evenly divided Senate now and I don’t think any of us think that it’s beyond the possible that the Democrats can be in the minority in a couple of years,’ Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) told POLITICO Monday. . . . The problem for Democrats is that there have been several different approaches proposed, and the party hasn’t settled on one unified filibuster reform plan.”
Certainly, more reasoned Democrats have recognized in the past that the filibuster protects the rights of the minority in the Senate. However, the remaining ranks of Democrats include radical progressives. As far back as 1995, many Senate Democrats did voted against changing cloture rules. At the time, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) [who appeared more benign a decade ago] said, “The full-scale elimination of one of the most sacred rules of the Senate--the filibuster--will not result in a more efficient Senate. In fact, it has the potential to result in the tyranny of the majority.” Reid added, “I view the use of the filibuster as a shield, rather than a sword. invoked to protect rights, not to suppress them.” A decade later, even then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) said, “What [the American people] 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.” Appearing on MSNBC just a year ago, now retiring, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) was more direct: “I totally oppose the idea of changing filibuster rules. . . .That’s foolish, in my view.”
In recent decades, Republicans have used the filibuster to block or delay some of the most egregious legislation proposed by both parties in Congress, as The Atlantic points out in a profile of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell today.
The NYT notes, “Republicans, who forced more than 90 votes to cut off filibusters in the last two years, said they had little choice since Democrats on many occasions refused them any opportunity to propose changes to legislation. [Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar] Alexander and others have warned Democrats to brace for a backlash should they act unilaterally. In a speech prepared for a Tuesday appearance at the Heritage Foundation, Mr. Alexander reiterated his position that Democrats would be making a mistake. ‘Voters who turned out in November are going to be pretty disappointed when they learn the first thing Democrats want to do is cut off the right of the people they elected to make their voices heard on the floor of the U.S. Senate,’ he said in his planned remarks.”
Today, in an opt ed in the Washington Post, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell discusses a significant historical poit of when the Republicans were in the majority in 15 years ago and stood in opposing taking action which would abuse the Democrats: "Sen. Tom Harkin had proposed changing Senate rules so that it would take only 51 votes to shut down debate instead of the traditional 60. Though it was clearly in the Republican majority's short-term interest to support the measure, every one of us voted against it, as did then-Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. and senior members of the current Democratic leadership in the Senate, including the majority leader and the president pro tempore.
What every Republican senator, and many Democratic senators, realized at the time was that any attempt by a sitting majority to grasp at power would come back to haunt us. Even worse, any rule change aimed at making it easier for one party to force legislation through the Senate with only a slim partisan majority would undermine the Senate's unique role as a moderating influence and put a permanent end to bipartisanship. . . .
First, a change in the rules by a bare majority aimed at benefiting Democrats today could just as easily be used to benefit Republicans tomorrow. Do Democrats really want to create a situation where, two or four or six years from now, they are suddenly powerless to prevent Republicans from overturning legislation they themselves worked so hard to enact?"
The People of America have spoken and it was against the gross power grabs from the American people being taken by the Democrat lead Big Government. If more Senators had been up for re-election, control of the Senate most likely would be in the hand of Republicans as is the House of Representatives. Have the Democrats learned. Well Sen. Reid having been reelected has nothing but arrogance for the American people in general. Now that the numbers of Republicans have increased in the Senate to the point of stopping legislation and forcing a debate on issues, Reid and his henchmen are attempting to change the Senate rules. Reid doesn't care about when the Democrats may be the minority party. He has sold his soul.
Over time, it seems more apparent that if it was within his power, Harry Reid would support making President Obama a supreme commander -- a Caesar -- with absolute dictatorial control over America. Upon what basis is this assertion. Well consider the following.
Se, Reid has already practiced a policy of blocking Republicans from bringing amendments to bills if Reid believed those amendments would be passed in opposition to Reid's desired outcome. He also has repeatedly supported bills being written by select Democrats behind Closed doors verses going through committees. He has forced major progressive bills to the floor and called for voting on these bills without allowing Senators time to read the bills or to offer amendments. In addition, while Sen. Reid stopped President Bush from making recess appointments, he allowed his beloved progressive supporter and fund raiser Barrack Obama to make recess appointments which were objectionable to a majority of Americans.
These actions by Reid infuriated the American public which eventually took their wrath out on other Democrats up for re-election in 2010. Then after the American people voted overwhelmingly to send a message to the left, Reid threw caution to the wind and rammed through as much liberal legislation a possible in a Lame Duck session and allowed President Obama free reign to again make left leaning recess appoints knowing that these would have be apposed in the new session of Congress.
For those who would say that making President Obama a supreme commander -- a Caesar could never happen, I suggest that you read history and looking at what is happening in other countries. It will be critical for the American public not to be lulled to sleep or to be distracted by their own situations. It is critical that the American people again stand strong in opposing the progressive agenda. Rick Santorum rightly said today in a talk with new media activists, "The major battlefield is not Washington, D.C. The battleground is the hearts and mind of the American Public."
This is a time of grave danger for the Republic. Progressives will continue to seek more power even buying more and more people (enslaving them) though expanding government programs. The grassroots must remain alert, active and encourage elected conservatives to continue to stand in actions and deeds.
Tags: US Senate, democrat power grab, proposed rule change being floated To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
0 comments:
Post a Comment