Why filibuster reform could backfire big-time on Democrats
Running in the background during the fiscal cliff negotiations — if that’s what you can call the series of unrealistic proposals each side is making in the press — is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s push to curtail the filibuster.
Democrats won’t control the U.S. House for at least two more years, so the filibuster isn’t getting in the way of Reid and President Obama pursuing their legislative goals. Eliminating or limiting the scope of the filibuster would, however, allow Obama to push through his appointees more easily, and it could set a precedent for other expedited changes to Senate rules.
While both Republicans and Democrats lament the filibuster when in the majority but guard it jealously when in the minority, conservatives have traditionally been more sympathetic to the rule than liberals. That’s because the filibuster is seen as another brake on legislation, and conservatives tend to be more skeptical of a proliferation of new laws.
But Ramesh Ponnuru makes the interesting case in a Bloomberg View column that the filibuster’s true role is preventing change, regardless of ideology — and that liberals have more interest in keeping things more or less the way they are in Washington than conservatives do. Here’s the gist of his argument:
When the federal government was small, the filibuster helped to keep it that way because it protects the status quo. If American politics ever changed so much that most legislation aimed to pare back government, however, the filibuster would protect the big-government status quo. That day may seem impossibly far off, given the liberal confidence and conservative pessimism of this post-election period.
With the passage of the health-care law, however, liberalism finally finished the project of building the American welfare state. Its main job now is to protect and refine what has already been won. Matthew Yglesias, another liberal writer, said so at the time: “The crux of the matter is that progressive efforts to expand the size of the welfare state are basically done.”
If that’s right, then liberals have less to gain, and conservatives less to fear, from making it easier to pass new laws than either side now thinks.
Think, for instance, about potentially large changes to Obamacare. Most people assumed Obamacare’s status was settled by last month’s re-election of its namesake. But the refusal of many states to go along with their roles in carrying out the law, along with the emergence of previously unmentioned problems with the law’s implementation, means there’s a very high likelihood the law will have to be opened up to a serious reworking in the next few years. The same Democrats who want to change the filibuster now could, in the not-too-distant future, find themselves out of the majority in the Senate. In just four years, if a Republican wins the White House, a filibuster change could mean they find themselves totally locked out of the debate even if the GOP can’t get to 60 Senate seats. To paraphrase an old saying about big government, Senate rules expedient enough to give you everything you want are also expedient enough to take it all away.
There would be problems with that kind of approach, of course. For one, Republicans would invite a great deal of public backlash by making changes with only a narrow governing majority. Witness the 2010 electoral backlash against Democrats for the way they enacted Obamacare. Despite their sizable majorities, Democrats had to resort to procedural manipulations to overcome the objections not only of Republicans but of the more moderate senators in their own party.
Dramatic policy changes work better when the political buy-in is broader, which is one reason Obamacare remains unpopular. The filibuster in the Senate structurally helps make that more likely. It would be better on the whole to keep it in place. But, as Ponnuru points out, those who disagree might do well to be careful what they wish for.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
210 comments Add your comment
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 4th, 2012
11:58 am
Just appoint a Senatorial Czar to “adjudicate” the voting and be done with it.
whoops! didn’t mean to give the socialists any ideas…
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 4th, 2012
11:59 am
The way that obama ignores Congress, law and the Constitution, I don’t know why you wasted so much ink on this subject.
Don't Tread
December 4th, 2012
12:04 pm
“Senate rules expedient enough to give you everything you want are also expedient enough to take it all away”
Reminds me of another saying…government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away. This is a threat to individual freedom (not that liberals care about that, except for themselves).
Building the welfare state was just a stepping stone to the bigger goal of perpetual one-party rule, with themselves in charge. If you like your freedoms, soon you will have to fight for them.
Dusty
December 4th, 2012
12:05 pm
Kyle, all this may be true but it is about as interesting as reading congressional minutes and speeches.
I’m sorry, I know you are trying to educate us to the “tricks’ of government but don’t they ever do anything stunning? We know Harry Reid (D) can be trusted only as far as you can throw him. So what’s new?
I’m interested but keep falling asleep. Oh well, may the scholars and the dastardlhy democrats be with you. Maybe we’ll even have a FILIBUSTER.
I’ll check back later to see who wins.
BW
December 4th, 2012
12:11 pm
Kyle
The filibuster is being abused. It should not be used to place holds on nominees simply because an amendment wasn’t allowed. At this point, the optics of the way the filibuster is being used does not look good for the current minority. As the saying goes, let’s cross that bridge when we get there on the Dems being in the minority. At the very least you should be forced to filibuster alas Mr Smith Goes to Washington. I say go for it….I can only imagine the havoc the Republicans will play on the Senate if the President has to replace a conservative justice. Let’s not pretend that one party is less political than the other and there would be this gentlemanly decorum in such a case. You are right that the Dems will have to stand on what they implement but if the President’s coalition gets the message that there are elections every two years instead every four, then the Dems have reason to feel comfortable about changing the rules. Don’t forget that many states have a Republican supermajority in their legislatures so how they govern will figure into the equation in 2014 as well (yes that goes for the Democratic supermajorities as well)
JDW
December 4th, 2012
12:14 pm
Simple fact is the current crop of Republicans have abused the right and it must change.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
12:21 pm
There’s no reason that it “must change” other than Democrat liberal fascists don’t like any checks on their ability to screw up the country.
Progressive Humanist
December 4th, 2012
12:21 pm
Due to demographic changes and Republicans’ rigid philosophy (and hence, their inability to appeal to a growing number of voters) the chances of a Republican winning the White House in 2016 are very slim. And Kyle speaks of broad “political buy-in” as if Republicans over the last four years (or next four) would be willing to compromise and agree to anything the President wants. End the filibuster. Let’s go off the fiscal curb. Everybody’s taxes go up and then we can negotiate tax cuts for the middle class only. And Republicans can prepare themselves for defeat after defeat because they’re out of step with the American people and on the wrong side of history.
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
12:26 pm
Progressive @ 12:21: Eight years ago, it was the Democrats who were doomed. We can see how that turned out. Four years is a long, long, long, long time in politics. Those who make big changes — like ending the filibuster — while ignoring that truth are likely to get burned in the end.
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
12:28 pm
John Q @ 12:25: Article I, Section 5: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…”
The filibuster, and the majority vote needed to change it, has been the rule of the Senate for a long time. This post is not about the legality of changing it — that’s never been in question, as far as I know — but about the wisdom of doing so.
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
12:30 pm
John Q @ 12:28: And time will tell if there’s a there there wrt this Democratic permanent majority. All I know is that politicians have come and gone, immigrants have come to our country, and demographics and party allegiances have changed, and there’s never been a real permanent majority in this country. It’s highly unlikely there ever will be.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
12:33 pm
John Q, may I suggest that you read the Constitution? It isn’t that long, and you will find the answer to your question quite easily. I understand your slothfulness, laziness, and entitlement mentality, but honestly, you can do this one on your own.
CC
December 4th, 2012
12:38 pm
“And Republicans can prepare themselves for defeat after defeat because they’re out of step with the American people and on the wrong side of history.”
As were the Germans who opposed Hitler in the 1930’s, and the Russians who opposed Stalin . . .
leedart
December 4th, 2012
12:39 pm
Don’t worry about the filiabuster, I can’t wait for this state to turn blue again! All u new southerners that have taken this state backward for the last ten years will soon be out! Thank you god!
JDW
December 4th, 2012
12:41 pm
@Kyle…”The filibuster, and the majority vote needed to change it, has been the rule of the Senate for a long time.”
Indeed it has, but the abuse is a recent development that has been fine tuned by the current crop of Republicans.
Before 1987 there were about 40 fillibusters a term, following the Democratic majority of 1987 Republicans increased that the around 60 with a high of 80 in 1993-94. When Republicans came back to the majority in 1995 Democrats maintained the 60-80 number. However when Demcrats returned to the majority in 2007 Republicans fillibustered 135 times for the current term that number may top 200.
That is abuse pure and simple and must be addresed.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm
MarkV
December 4th, 2012
12:42 pm
Kyle’s concern about Democrats possibly suffering in the future from a reform of the filibuster rules is touching. After the abuse of filibuster by the Republicans, the reform would be good for the country. Isn’t that what Kyle should be concerned about, rather than what it would mean for Democrats IF they became minority in the senate?
Hillbilly D
December 4th, 2012
12:42 pm
and there’s never been a real permanent majority in this country. It’s highly unlikely there ever will be.
Totally agree with that. The elections are usually controlled by the middle and they have a short attention span. Usually, 8-12 years is about all any one party is going to get before they get sick of you. The only time this country was united for any length of time was WW II. Look how long the “unity” lasted after 9/11; not very long. You’re just not going to have unity in a large group; it’s against human nature.
As for the filibuster stuff, that’s just more political games.
Eight years ago, it was the Democrats who were doomed. We can see how that turned out.
After LBJ won in ‘64, the Republicans were doomed, after McGovern in ‘72, the Democrats were doomed, after Ford ‘76, the Republicans were doomed again, after Reagan in ‘80, the Democrats were doomed again, Clinton came along and the Republicans were doomed, followed by the Democrats being doomed by the Contract for America, 2006 the Democrats were doomed again and now it’s the Republicans who are doomed again. That’s just the highlights of the ones I’ve lived through. The scoop is folks, neither of these parties is going anywhere, anytime soon and there’ll be no other party emerging on the horizon. Both parties are in this monopoly together and they’ll see to it that it stays the way it is. It’s their own self-preservation they care about, not ours.
JamVet
December 4th, 2012
12:43 pm
That makes three out of the past four elections that the far right wing has gotten pummeled. (Ask Mssrs, West, Walsh, Allen, Akin and Mourdoch.)
Even so, is it possible that the awful Democratic Party could open some back door to let the bungling and deadly neocons right back in? Of course.
But you guys just ran the weakest, most pitiful presidential candidate in at least eighty years. And the entire slates that you trotted out in both of the past two presidential elections were beyond abysmal. They were laughably absurd.
Worse, the demographics are REALLY beginning to work again the insular, intolerant Lily White Party.
And worse than that? The cons have demonstrated ZERO ability, desire or inclination to learn from their devastating mistakes of the past 12 years.
In fact they are doubling down on the stupid! (The War on Women, lazy, stupid blacks on the Dem plantation, the 47% claptrap, protesters are scum and on and on and on and on…)
So…. the future looks truly bleak for this hijacked, dysfunctional GOP.
And here’s to hoping that you rubes, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz et al keep up the good work!
I’ll just keep making more popcorn and love watching the serial train wrecks unfold…
MANGLER
December 4th, 2012
12:44 pm
I though the Senate was there to have final say so over Congress if need be. Then the Supreme Court, just in case. So the filibuster merely serves as a way for Congresspersons to annoy each other into inaction.
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
12:46 pm
John Q @ 12:38: There is nothing serious about the president’s current proposal. A serious proposal would move in the direction of resolution. He knows the GOP would never agree to $4 in tax hikes for every $1 in spending cuts. Heck, a large number of Democrats in Congress wouldn’t go for that. It was for show, pure and simple.
JamVet
December 4th, 2012
12:48 pm
…and there’s never been a real permanent majority in this country.
Technically true, but someone has forgotten their history.
The Republicans were the minority in the US Congress for forty straight years.
FORTY.
Most of those in BOTH the House and Senate.
At this rate that record may be challenged. But this time vis a vis the Executive Branch…
Jefferson
December 4th, 2012
12:49 pm
If the GOP wasn’t so boneheaded you wouldn’t have this kind of problem, never did before — what is your problem ?
Jerry Eads
December 4th, 2012
12:55 pm
We’ve only been here 236 years, Kyle. Think long term (like maybe a thousand). Should we actually be so competent as to last that long (big assumption), will we be better or worse off without the filibuster in 2776? My guess is that without would be a good choice.
Also in the long run, seems like a two (or three?) party system is not only good but necessary for the country’s survival as we know it. If the GOP (certainly nowadays never, EVER to be confused with conservative) becomes extinct, as it certainly seems to be working toward, perhaps another party will rise to take it’s place. Libertarians, anyone?
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
12:57 pm
JDW @ 12:41: Let’s not forget the way Democrats abused the filibuster, starting with the invention of Borking court nominees. Numbers don’t tell the whole story. And, to the degree they do, it’s just as important to look at how many times cloture was defeated, not just the number of times it was filed. The Dems’ record in sustaining the filibuster in 1995-96 stacks up right next to the GOP’s from 2007-present.
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
12:58 pm
MarkV @ 12:42: As I said in the OP, I do think having a brake on rapid legislative change is what’s good for the country.
As for “concern” — that’s your word. I’d describe it more as warning them there’s a reason to think in the long term rather than just the short term.
MarkV
December 4th, 2012
12:58 pm
Isn’t it rather funny when Kyle complains about the White House proposal as not being serious because the GOP would never go for the proposed, after the Republicans make a proposal the Democrats would never go for?
JDW
December 4th, 2012
12:59 pm
@Kyle…”There is nothing serious about the president’s current proposal.”
There is no reason to make another proposal until the Republicans get over the hump of tax rates going up on the 2%…they are going up one way or another.
Georgia, The " New Mississippi "
December 4th, 2012
1:00 pm
Come on Kyle,
Shake the cob webs out and get back to being a real journalist. Report the news and stop trying to create it. Use credible sources and factual data in your arguments.
.
CC
December 4th, 2012
1:00 pm
“If the GOP wasn’t so boneheaded you wouldn’t have this kind of problem, never did before — what is your problem ?”
Probably because there are Americans who take their stand on the solid ground of ethics and morality rather than succumbing to the wiles of a political prostitute. Right will always be right, and it is not changed by circumstances, time or demographics. Those who can forsake the principles upon which America was founded in pursuit of personal plunder of others’ wealth had no principles to begin with and no hope of ever knowing the meaning of living by a personal moral code.
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
1:01 pm
John Q @ 12:53: I’ve said before, I don’t think the GOP can get everything it wants. And I haven’t exactly endorsed its proposals. But Obama’s proposal smacks of, as David Gergen said the other day, trying to rub the GOP’s nose in it rather than trying to get things done. That’s one good way for politicians to lose the public faster than they might have otherwise.
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
1:02 pm
Jerry @ 12:55: I’ll let you do all the worrying about what happens in 2776.
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
1:03 pm
MarkV @ 12:58: See my 1:01.
MarkV
December 4th, 2012
1:03 pm
Kyle Wingfield @12:58 pm
“As I said in the OP, I do think having a brake on rapid legislative change is what’s good for the country.”
You did, and I disagree, after the experience of the past four years.
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
1:05 pm
MarkV @ 1:03: And you are, of course, free to disagree with me. But don’t claim I didn’t even say what I thought was best.
Hillbilly D
December 4th, 2012
1:06 pm
I’ll let you do all the worrying about what happens in 2776.
None of us will be here and neither will the U.S. Might not be anybody here for that matter. Somebody else can worry about that, I ain’t got that kind of time on my hands.
MarkV
December 4th, 2012
1:09 pm
Kyle Wingfield @ 1:03 pm
Your opinion and David Gergen’s. Let’s see how public will view the proposals, considering the overwhelming support of the proposed increase of the tax rates for the upper 2%, and the resistance to the entitlement cuts the Republicans propose.
jd
December 4th, 2012
1:10 pm
The Founding Fathers rejected super majority requirements — we should too… The Senate is not function as the Fathers intended…
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
1:13 pm
John Q: If you’re going to rule out as “patently false” areas where the results are mixed, I don’t think we can have much of a discussion.
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
1:15 pm
Btw, here’s a question for the Obama defenders on the thread today: Why do you believe his plan, which raises taxes and spending (if you count only the guaranteed spending changes he’s offered), is “balanced,” whereas the GOP plan to raise taxes and cut spending is not “balanced”?
jd
December 4th, 2012
1:16 pm
Kyle — R’s have filibustered twice the volume of 95-96 — 140 plus times compared to less than 70 — and in the 1950’s — the filibuster was employed only once a biennial.
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
1:18 pm
jd @ 1:16: As I said earlier, look at the number of times cloture hasn’t been invoked (i.e., the number of times the filibuster was sustained). After all, you can filibuster to slow down debate or to pressure the majority to make concessions on the bill, not just to stop it completely.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
1:21 pm
John Q: Kyle – why do the R’s care so much about the wealthiest of the wealthy?
———–
Change “wealthy” to “small business” and ask again.
One other reason: Rs understand that we don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. And more government spending means slower economic growth in the long term.
That’s why.
Why do Ds want bigger government and slower growth?
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
1:22 pm
John Q @ 1:18: And if you believe marginal tax rates are the sole determinant of growth and productivity — something I’ve never claimed — then you’ll believe that was more than coincidence.
JamVet
December 4th, 2012
1:22 pm
Right will always be right and right wing claptrap will always be right wing claptrap.
MarkV
December 4th, 2012
1:23 pm
Kyle Wingfield @ 1:15 pm
The answer to your question is easy. A “balance” does not mean that something, anything, is on both sides. Balance means a distribution that is proportionate. Obviously, the Democrats do not believe that what the GOP proposes is proportionate.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
1:26 pm
“Simple fact is the current crop of Republicans have abused the right and it must change.”
JDW once again confuses statistics with facts. A cloture vote can be on anything; a bill or one of various amendments to bills. Clotures can be used to stop bills in their tracks early, or stop them later on when they have morphed into something unwieldy. There was a flurry of useless bills coming out of the Pelosi-led House beginning in 2007 and 2008 which needed to be slowed down or stopped completely. So once again JDW takes the simplistic route instead of the analytical route to try to make a misbegotten point.
That being said, Kyle is right. Be careful whet you wish for; you may just get it. And despite AmVet’s usual bleatings about national elections, STATES elect Senators and Representatives, and there is little indication of the electoral morass he loves to repeat ad nauseum regarding Republican wipeouts at the state level.
However, I have always been in favor of relaxing the filibuster rule. I’ve been consistent in my opinion that if you are against a particular bill, then be willing to stand up and speak against it in the well of the Senate. To that end, I’d still like a strict filibuster on budget and spending bills – maybe relaxing it down to 55 votes, but not requiring any long-winded speeches to hold up those types of legislation. Anything else like appointments? Let the bellicose have their day.
iggy
December 4th, 2012
1:27 pm
The filibuster should not be busted. In todays “everything is a tragedy and must be handled/passed without due diligence, because its ultimatly for the good of the children” the filibuster is a MUST!!!
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
1:27 pm
The rest of us, John Q, will recognize that America’s place in the world economy in the 1950s was very different from our place today, that globalization means competition is greater, that effective tax rates haven’t changed as dramatically as marginal tax rates (because rates aren’t the only component of taxes), that federal spending has also changed dramatically since then (federal spending as a percentage of GDP average 17.6% in the 1950s — do you want to go back to that?), that the regulatory burden on businesses has changed dramatically since then as well … I could go on.
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
1:28 pm
MarkV @ 1:23: And what is “proportionate” about only raising taxes and not cutting spending?
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
1:30 pm
After all, MarkV, all the president is proposing wrt spending cuts is that the two sides talk about it next year (after he’s already gotten everything he wants).
jd
December 4th, 2012
1:31 pm
Kyle — cloture is not invoked when the majority can’t get 60 votes — so, in order to move on to other business, you drop the matter being filibustered… stopping the discussion for that point in time – and, the minority wins — gaining the same outcome as if the filibuster was sustained.
Reality
December 4th, 2012
1:36 pm
Years ago I really was a republican. Today, whenever I read anything the republicans are doing (or have done over the last few years) really does make my stomach turn. I cannot understand how anyone that is a true American can think that what they have done and continue to do is good for our Country by any stretch of the imagination. Shame on them!
bookman parrot
December 4th, 2012
1:38 pm
the “reform” that Dems are interested in is inflicting the wants of the 52% over the 48% and totally run over / ignore anything the 48% would like.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
1:38 pm
To those of you alleged “negotiation specialists” on here that feel that Obama needs to take a hard line, your inability to understand negotiations is simply pathetic.
There is a time and place to be aggressive, but that time and place ended months ago. In case you missed it, we’re under a fiscal time crunch and this is Washington, D.C.; a place where movement doesn’t come easily in the best of times, and we still have a divided government. So movement, despite the libs desire to get everything they want due to a close re-election outcome (and electoral votes only count in the election – NOT the mood of the electorate) is still not going to occur.
So it’s about time for the Executive Branch LEADER to show some LEADERSHIP and make some proposal that isn’t so far from reality and get this process moving. For once in his incompetent lifetime, he needs to actually show something he was elected to do.
LEADERSHIP.
I’m not hopeful, as he doesn’t possess this trait, but he’d better start.
Logical Dude
December 4th, 2012
1:38 pm
Kyle,
I completely agree. This is the same type of item as when Bush and Cheney were making power grabs, and there was no hesitation on the Republican legislature to stop it or slow it down. And now Obama has those powers and he is using them.
Keep the filibuster strong!
JamVet
December 4th, 2012
1:40 pm
Fine, you faux conservatives can have Idaho, Arkansas and Georgia.
You’ve already lost both coasts and the upper Midwest. Likely forever.
And at least this way we are limiting the damage you nuts can inflict on the nation.
The writing is on the Electoral College wall, boys.
And you are screwed. And the real kicker? You have nobody to blame but yourselves. (Hysterical, huh?)
Darwin was of course, correct – evolve or die.
BenDaho
December 4th, 2012
1:42 pm
After the abuse of filibuster by the Republicans, the reform would be good for the country. Isn’t that what Kyle should be concerned about, rather than what it would mean for Democrats IF they became minority in the senate?
I love the subtleties of the proggies trying to power grab all they can while they have power. Proggies love them some good dictators don’t they. Why do they call them proggies as we watch Europe decline with their stale old form of government, the government proggies long for?
Progressive Humanist
December 4th, 2012
1:55 pm
Kyle @ 12:26:
There’s never been a demographic shift like the one we’re seeing now, where whites will be a plurality, as opposed to a majority. In order for Republicans to reemerge as a national political force they will have to garner a much larger percentage of Black, Hispanic, single female, and young voters, all of which are growing disproportionately in comparison to the Republican base (older white males). And Republicans have little chance of substantially increasing support amongst any of those groups. Your numbers are dwindling and ours are growing.
Whites only made up 59% of the electorate in Georgia this year, the first time their numbers have ever dipped under 60%, and their percentage has been dropping 3-4 points every four year election cycle. Georgia will be a swing state by 2020, if not by 2016, when whites will comprise a slim majority in the state. And if Republicans can’t count on Georgia’s 16 electoral votes, they have no chance of winning a national election. None. Democrats now start off any presidential election with a base of 263 electoral votes from blue states, not including Virginia, Ohio, Florida, or Colorado which have all gone blue for two straight cycles.
You can keep fooling yourself if you think the pendulum will just randomly swing back in the other direction, and you can keep being surprised each election when reality does not align with your “gut feelings”.
JDW
December 4th, 2012
1:56 pm
@Tiberus…”Clotures can be used to stop bills in their tracks early, or stop them later on when they have morphed into something unwieldy. There was a flurry of useless bills coming out of the Pelosi-led House beginning in 2007 and 2008 which needed to be slowed down or stopped completely. So once again JDW takes the simplistic route instead of the analytical route to try to make a misbegotten point.”
We aren’t talking about a single data point in 2007-2008, they upped the number in 2009-2010 and shot it through the roof in 2011-2012. They are obstructing pure and simple. Just take the case of appointment confirmations…42.8% of Obama’s appointments have been confirmed…previous low water mark…79.3% for Bush 1.
It’s BS and its time to change.
Mr. Holmes
December 4th, 2012
1:56 pm
Simple, yes/no question, Kyle: Do you agree the GOP’s record-shattering use of the filibuster during the Obama administration has been abusive of the rule?
carlosgvv
December 4th, 2012
1:58 pm
For some reason, Republicans are acting as though the election didn’t happen and it’s early 2011 business as usual. This denial will not end well for them.
JF McNamara
December 4th, 2012
1:59 pm
New legislators are elected to make change. If People didn’t want change, they would have voted for the same people and kept the status quo. If Republicans win, they deserve to modify the government as they see fit so long as they feel it is the will of the American people. Same for Democrats.
The minority party shouldn’t have a lot of say in the governance. The White House and the House of Representatives are our checks and balances. Not bitter losers.
JDW
December 4th, 2012
1:59 pm
Tiberius…”There is a time and place to be aggressive, but that time and place ended months ago. In case you missed it, we’re under a fiscal time crunch and this is Washington, D.C.; a place where movement doesn’t come easily in the best of times, and we still have a divided government. ”
O’Dear silly me I would have thought the time is right after you SPANK the opposition in elections and while the electorate blames the Republicans for the stalemate by a 25 point margin…
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/04/poll-gop-to-get-more-blame-than-obama-if-fiscal-cliff-talks-fail/?hpt=hp_t1
Sounds like a position of strength to me, but of course I sure things are different in Tiberiusville.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
2:01 pm
AmVet, there is a difference between evolving into something better, and mutating into something destructive.
Liberals are like cancer cells in that regard.
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
2:03 pm
Progressive @ 1:55: No, we’ve never seen whites as a plurality rather than a majority. But it’s also inapt to discuss the history of the electorate in terms of “whites” — for many decades, that was the only category of voters, and the demographic trends we would have discussed would have been within that group. The point being, the makeup of the electorate changes, and the two-party system has prevailed, with both parties moving into and out of the majority.
And I don’t know that anyone on the right is thinking, or even hoping, “the pendulum will just randomly swing back in the other direction.” Everyone I know and read recognizes that it will take work to reach out to groups of voters who traditionally haven’t voted for Republicans. I’ve written a couple of pieces about that since the election.
That said, had Romney managed to win as large a percentage of the Hispanic vote as Bush did in 2004, we would probably be calling him the president-elect — and liberals would be soul-searching instead of gloating.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
2:03 pm
“For some reason, Republicans are acting as though the election didn’t happen and it’s early 2011 business as usual.”
For some reason carlos doesn’t realize that NOTHING changed in the makeup of the Legislative and Executive branches in 2012 moving into 2013.
Mr. Holmes
December 4th, 2012
2:05 pm
I don’t see a way out of the political mess the GOP is in right now, regarding taxes. They could literally offer Obama 99% of what he wants, he says no, we go over the cliff, and he can *still* hang them out to dry in the court of public opinion. Seriously, what are they going to say? “Well, we made him a fair offer, but because he didn’t take it, we’re not going to vote for this middle-class tax cut.”
The American people are starting to recognize the truth of trends like the one Bookman illustrated with his latest post, and hear me, Kyle: They WANT the tax RATES in the top bracket to go up. No amount of horse-trading or obfuscation is going to change that, and the longer the GOP resists it, the worse they are going to look.
Now, if the rates on just the top 2% go up and the economy tanks, then we can have this conversation again. But methinks the reason the GOP is fighting this so hard is because they know raising that top rate will not have any significant impact, since those earners are not spending that money anyway! And if the deficit starts coming down while the economy continues its steady improvement, that will lead to even greater consumer confidence, and so on.
That’s what everyone on the Right is terrified of. Probably including Kyle.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
2:06 pm
“O’Dear silly me I would have thought the time is right after you SPANK the opposition in elections and while the electorate blames the Republicans for the stalemate by a 25 point margin…”
In case you missed it, JDW (and as usual, you did), the spanking is in the Electoral College, NOT the popular vote, and while the former looks like a spanking, the latter is the actual mood of the electorate.
Reality, JDW.
Try it sometime.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 4th, 2012
2:10 pm
When the federal government was small,…
Ok, I give up, when was this? 1810?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
2:11 pm
Enter your comments hereof President Reagan’s 525 electoral college votes–now THAT was a spanking.
Obozo just squeaked by in comparison.
JDW
December 4th, 2012
2:12 pm
@Tiberius…”the latter is the actual mood of the electorate”
O’ you mean the same electorate that blames the Republicans for the stalemate by a 53% to 27% margin…that electorate?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
2:14 pm
John Q, a sock puppet is an online name used for deceptive purposes. Get that through your thick head.
The House is still firmly in Republican hands, and the Senate is still firmly in Democrat hands and the filibuster has not yet changed. Get that through your thick head.
The way Washington works hasn’t changed. Get that through your thick head.
Glenn Bexk
December 4th, 2012
2:14 pm
Neither party has a monopoly on Senate rule changes. This goes beyond just the filibuster and the majority of time it is done for political expediency of the party in the majority.
Those who back the party in power usually are ok with it and those who don’t, do not like it.
This is nothing new whether the filibuster rule is changed or not. Both parties usually get bit by their own changes, but both have hedged their bets and changed them.
To demonize one side over another is partisan nothings by those backing the minority at the time a change occurs.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
2:15 pm
JDW, a poll is not a vote.
Reality. Try it sometime.
Glenn
December 4th, 2012
2:17 pm
Now Kyle you know the states will fall in line on Obamacare . They need the federal coin , especially the red states . As far as the filibuster , is there a bigger tool perceived to cause gridlock than the filibuster. I can’t believe you tried to make a conservative argument using the term ” broad appeal ” . There is nothing broad about the Republicans right now . The Republicans have a fringe voice and until some moderation comes from your party they will become irrelevant going forward . Oh unless there is secession .
HRPufnstuf
December 4th, 2012
2:18 pm
The filibuster is not the problem, it is the way the Republicans abused it so in the last two years. Bring back the REAL filibuster, where you have to show up and speak. That will force either party to vehemently oppose a bill when they really mean it. Otherwise, they can do it on a whim, like they (Republicans)are doing now.
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
2:18 pm
Mr. Holmes @ 1:56: What I believe is that members of the Senate ought to do what they believe is best for the country. If there is more disagreeable legislation being proposed than in previous years, we should expect to see the minority party try harder to block it. As long as those members are acting within the rules, it’s up to the majority party to a) persuade them to change their minds or b) to persuade the voters to change their senators.
So, no, I don’t think the sheer number of filibusters tells us the rule has been abused.
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
2:20 pm
JDW
Yes try reality sometimes. Like Rasmussen and Gallup as well as the right wing pundits who were not into reality last month and said Romney was going to win. We won’t bother to mention those on this blog who were not trying on reality with their “President Romney” projections.
Just saying…. JDW
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 4th, 2012
2:21 pm
Democrats who want to change the filibuster now could, in the not-too-distant future, find themselves out of the majority in the Senate
Demographics are agin’ it. You can’t gerrymander Senate seats. Let’s take our chances.
JDW
December 4th, 2012
2:25 pm
@Tiberius…”a poll is not a vote.”
Nope but guess what…we had one of those too…won it.
Linda
December 4th, 2012
2:26 pm
The negotiations are no longer about increasing taxes, increasing revenues, more non-stimulus spending, paying people not to work, kicking the sequester down the road, fixing Medicare doctors, refinancing personal mortgages, preventing the death of entitlements & giving Obama the authority to increase the debt limit when it’s not raining. I think it’s about that partridge in the pear tree he added to his wish list.
Mr. Holmes
December 4th, 2012
2:26 pm
That’s quite the carefully parsed answer. By that logic, and since opposing parties typically believe the other party’s ideas are bad for the country, you’re saying it’s fair for the minority to bring just about all Senate business to a crashing halt, on the grounds that it’s “what’s best for the country.”
I do not believe that is nor has ever been the intention of the filibuster. Elections have consequences. While some power must be retained by the minority, they also should allow the majority party to reasonably enact the agenda upon which it was elected.
Georgia is a red state. I do not believe the Democratic minority should bring all state legislative and a healthy chunk of executive administration and judicial activity to a grinding halt just because I’m a big freakin crybaby. Yet that has been exactly the attitude of our GOP senators since Jan. 21, 2009.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 4th, 2012
2:26 pm
it’s up to the majority party to a) persuade them to change their minds
This is Kyle’s fantasy land. When the minority party is composed of legislators who put their Norquist pledges above their pledge of office, how is the majority going to convince them?
When you have a party composed of legislators known for their willingness to fall in line and tow the party line like the sheep they are, how is the majority party going to change their mind?
WE DONT CARE ABOUT CHANGING YOUR MINDS, GET IT? WE HAVE A MAJORITY SO SIT BACK AND SHUT IT.
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
2:27 pm
Kyle
Was McConnel just talking bs when he threatened filibuster rule changes several years ago. After all, he was crying about filibusters that were not even as many as his party is doing now.
That is fact.
Were you good with it then and would you be good with it had Republican’s changed the rule at that time?
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 4th, 2012
2:27 pm
Sorry, but we are not going to cave to your Con fears on this one…..
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
2:35 pm
“Demographics are agin’ it. You can’t gerrymander Senate seats. Let’s take our chances.”
I’m reminded of the over-confidence of liberals following their legislative excesses during the 2009-2010 Pelosi and Reid orgy.
“Taking chances” with an electorate who doesn’t like radical change doesn’t usually end up so good.
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
2:37 pm
Kyle
If memory serves me correctly the esteemed Senator from Kentucky said something along the lines of the filibuster being an outdated Senate rule or had served its useful purpose.
Do you recall anything along those lines?
If rules are changed so be it. Democrats will eventually get bit, however they are well within their right to do so.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
2:37 pm
“Nope but guess what…we had one of those too…won it.”
And barely so. Your side would be wise to remember the actual vote, and not the Electoral one.
The former is far more representative of the mood of the country than the latter.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
2:39 pm
“When you have a party composed of legislators known for their willingness to fall in line and tow the party line like the sheep they are, how is the majority party going to change their mind?”
No different when describing the Democrats, Finn.
“WE DONT CARE ABOUT CHANGING YOUR MINDS, GET IT? WE HAVE A MAJORITY SO SIT BACK AND SHUT IT.”
You have a majority in the SENATE, Finn. Reality says you still have to negotiate with the House, so I suggest some moderation is in order.
JDW
December 4th, 2012
2:40 pm
@Tiberius…your spin not withstanding 332 to 206 is a SPANKING. Tax rates were a part of the discussion that led to the spanking and now it is time for them to change.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
2:41 pm
It’s too bad Obozo’s success at getting elected, swaying opinion polls, and co-opting the media haven’t translated to, you know, actual accomplishments.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 4th, 2012
2:42 pm
You have a majority in the SENATE, Finn.
Yeah, Tiberius, this blog post is about the SENATE. But, sorry, I didn’t think I had to spell it out for you….
mwuahahahahahaha
Mr. Holmes
December 4th, 2012
2:42 pm
Your side would be wise to remember the actual vote, and not the Electoral one.
Umm, Obama won by nearly 4 full percentage points and 3.5 million votes. That’s not an inconsequential margin, particularly since the GOP candidate has won a simple majority just ONCE in the last six elections.
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
2:43 pm
Speaking of over confidence, did anyone listen to the right win pundits or read comments on this very blog right up through early evening on election day?
That would be right up until jolly turned to folly
Wa wa wa
As for being close, Bush was no less the President when he lost the popular vote in 2000 and many on the left cried. Nor when he won in 2004 with less EC and popular margin than Obama won by last month.
So spin and spin, it is no less a victory no matter how you slice the numbers and opine.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 4th, 2012
2:44 pm
Obamacare is a product of the Heritage foundation and an accepted approach to healthcare by those on the right….until Democrats start agreeing with it. EVEN ONE OF THEIR OWN made it into law in MA.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
2:45 pm
Rs proposed $4 in spending in return for $1 in cuts, in the face of trillion-dollar deficits and $16 trillion in debt?
Wrong, JohnQ, it’s your messiah who proposed that, no one else.
And we Americans oppose it because its stupid.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
2:49 pm
Mr. Holmes, as Kyle pointed out in an earlier column, just 400k total votes in only 4 states would have reversed the electoral win by Obama.
It is an inconsequential margin no matter how many ways you look at it.
Once again, the tendency on the left to come up with a landslide, when it was only on the Electoral College side of things, is not an indication of a gigantic mood swing in the actal mood of the country at large. You got your win, but in reality, it wasn’t as big as you wanted it, nor was it as big as you needed it to be to be called a mandate. The House is STILL in GOP hands, and comfortably so. The Senate is STILL in Democrat hands, but not to the point it was where the filibuster wasn’t needed in 2010.
No matter which way you slice it, we still have divided government, and not every different than what it was before November, as the number of seats which changed were minimal.
I suggest the celebratory mood of liberals needs to end and the reality of governing in this continuing divided environment begins.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
2:51 pm
“Yeah, Tiberius, this blog post is about the SENATE. But, sorry, I didn’t think I had to spell it out for you….”
And if the Senate was the only legislative body you had to worry about, Finn, your “We won” mantra might carry some weight.
Sadly, it does not.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
2:53 pm
Nice to see John Q throwing out the race card.
Simpleton.
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
2:55 pm
If a frog had wings
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts….
It doesn’t matter, McCain and now Romney were both beat down.
It is over. Romney does not get a redo
This isn’t horse shoes and hand grenades were close renders results.
One vote, one million votes…. Opine, whine and decline to accept reality, but it will not change anything.
Might give you a little esteem boost and hope for next time, however it means nothing as of right now.
Mr. Holmes
December 4th, 2012
2:58 pm
Mr. Holmes, as Kyle pointed out in an earlier column, just 400k total votes in only 4 states would have reversed the electoral win by Obama.
Except that’s not the metric you suggested. You said look at the popular vote, which I did. If you want to parse by state, then we’re back to the Electoral College and an even bigger tail-whuppin’. Perhaps next you’ll suggest we look only at the votes of white males over 50? (Because, let’s face it, those are probably the most “real” Americans in your book anyway.)
You should also put those vote totals in context. The GOP had reason to be confident given the history of presidents facing reelection with such dire economic numbers. By all historical experience, the president should have been toast. And yet the nation broke for Obama, and (no matter how you try to spin it) in a fairly significant way. There’s no way to interpret this other than a clear rejection of the GOP prescription. The only reason the House didn’t change hands is that we have effectively gerrymandered half the seats into non-competitiveness, on one side or the other.
But yes, we still have divided government. One large step in the right direction would be if one of our two parties decided to actually attempt to govern, rather than do everything it can to get the governmental boiler to explode.
yuzeyurbrane
December 4th, 2012
2:59 pm
Just to correct the record, Obamacare received 60+ votes in the Senate so the argument is specious. However, in general I agree that reforming use of the filibuster could come back at times to frustrate Democrats when they are in the minority, this is an issue which should be less partisan. We have all been taught that majority rule is the essence of democracy yet it has now been abused in the Senate to where even the most mundane matters often require a 60% vote. The math here must be steered dramatically back to our core principle of majority rule. I know that from time to time I will kick myself about it, but core principles of democracy should be the norm and let the chips fall where they may.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 4th, 2012
3:01 pm
Well, maybe there is a God:
Elizabeth Warren will reportedly be tapped to serve on the Senate Banking Committee, the Boston Globe reports.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 4th, 2012
3:02 pm
That’s “President” Elizabeth Warren come 2016.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:04 pm
I can see that suggesting caution and moderation to the left wing zealots on this blog is a waste of time.
As are most logical arguments.
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
3:05 pm
Mr Holmes
If you notice they only want speak of the numbers that meet their narrative. Not the EC numbers which at the end of the day are the only ones that count in regards to the Presidential race or the icing on the cake numbers which is the popular vote which in total votes and margin out paced Bush’s victories.
I mean we can talk about Romney’s 8 pt GA win if they like, but at the end of the day it didn’t nor doesn’t change anything in regards to the election outcome.
Don't Tread
December 4th, 2012
3:05 pm
“WE DONT CARE ABOUT CHANGING YOUR MINDS, GET IT? WE HAVE A MAJORITY SO SIT BACK AND SHUT IT.”
Hitler and Stalin had majorities too. But they were still wrong.
Mr. Holmes
December 4th, 2012
3:06 pm
Btw, Tiberius, perhaps you should go ahead & move forward on that long-overdue name change? Because from my perch it’s been quite a while since you “pulled the tail” of anyone right of Joe Lieberman.
It may help quiet the voices in your head to pretend you’re a centrist, but make no mistake: You are definitely a pretender.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:10 pm
“Because from my perch it’s been quite a while since you “pulled the tail” of anyone right of Joe Lieberman.”
That’s because you cannot read nor understand the English language, Mr. Holmes, or are too lazy to refer back to my many blog posts on social issues..
Reality, Try it sometime.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:12 pm
“That’s “President” Elizabeth Warren come 2016.”
Not a chance. The country can fall for a smooth, articulate con-man twice, but a shrill, inarticulate one-term Senator?
Nope.
Mr. Holmes
December 4th, 2012
3:13 pm
Heh. Sir, were you to spend the next century immersed in the finest authors and writing workshops Iowa has to offer, your talent with the language would still not approach mine. #notevenclose
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
3:13 pm
All the genius and excellence embodied in your messiah, Obozo, and still he can’t do anything to fix the deficit or unemployment. But hey, he’s popular, just like the most recent American Idol winner!
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 4th, 2012
3:14 pm
Just remember Cons, nothing is permanent. If the filibuster goes and we put in some hair-brained law, it will be pulled out eventually.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 4th, 2012
3:16 pm
And with Tiberius’ history of predictions, we can go ahead and plan on a “President Warren” in 2016.
hehehehe
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:18 pm
Trying to figure out the Iowa reference, Mr. Holmes.
Perhaps you might come in from left field to explain that?
Of course, since you believe your reading and writing skills to be so superior to mine, then it must just be the other explanation I offered; that being you’re too damned lazy to research accusations before throwing them.
jconservative
December 4th, 2012
3:23 pm
Wonder why no senator did a filibuster on the The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010? Because they did not, the Senate, and then the House, voted to increase taxes on 100% of taxpayers effective 1/1/2013. And it is that mandated tax increase that we are discussing and spinning today. It is that tax increase vote everyone is trying to weasel out of today. Where was Grover’s Pledge when that vote was taken?
———————-
I agree with Kyle on the filibuster. I thought we had put that idea away in 2005 when Majority Leader Bill Frist talked about the “nuclear option” and eventually gave up. Leave it alone. If a bill cannot get 60 votes it’s probably a bad idea. And if some Senators want the President to manage the Executive Branch without a cabinet, so be it. And if some Senators want the Judicial Branch to function without judges, so be it.
Progressive Humanist
December 4th, 2012
3:25 pm
Kyle @ 2:03:
That history of the white electorate is irrelevant now. While the preference of the white electorate has changed over time, vacillating between the two parties, the demographic groups that are expanding the most now are the ones who are least likely to shift party affiliations. The suggestions that you and most pundits on the right have offered for bringing those voters into your tent fall far short of anything that would actually move them in your direction, and you don’t even realize that. It’s unlikely that your party will be able to sway those voters because the core of your philosophy is in diametric opposition to the core of those voters.
Your supposition about what would have happened “if” Romney had won Hispanics at the same rate as Bush is just wishful thinking that is in conflict with reality. And it shows your level of denial. The fact is that the groups that are growing the fastest are the groups that tend to be the most staunch Democrats while the group that is most likely to vote Republican is shrinking every day. Without a massive overhaul of both the Republican philosophy and the way your party does its business in Washington (constant obstruction and a penchant for helping the wealthy while hammering the poor), the shift we’re seeing now in national politics is likely to be an extended one.
MANGLER
December 4th, 2012
3:26 pm
The full threatened sequestration doesn’t even cover the current budget gaps. Let it happen. The serious bloat will get chopped first, along with some important things as well. We’ll get to see what Congress can live without; It’s hand, foot, eye, nose, etc. The tail is safe, currently tucked between the legs.
Mr. Holmes
December 4th, 2012
3:30 pm
Tiberius, if you do not understand a reference to Iowa and writing workshops, you are less of a writer than I though.
Further, if you seriously believe anyone (not just me) is going to go back a do research (!?!) on you before returning your near-constant barrage of insults and taunts, you’ve probably got a narcissistic personality disorder for which you should seek treatment. If you don’t get help at Charter, get help somewhere.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:32 pm
“The fact is that the groups that are growing the fastest are the groups that tend to be the most staunch Democrats while the group that is most likely to vote Republican is shrinking every day.”
Correct, Progressive Humanist.
The takers are now outnumbering the producers. The problem is that the takers don’t realize that the money will eventually run out, while the producers do.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:35 pm
“Tiberius, if you do not understand a reference to Iowa and writing workshops, you are less of a writer than I though. ”
I stopped worry about Iowa reading and writing workshops once I got out of grade school, Mr. Holmes.
But then, I’ve progressed from my high school years. Apparently, you have not.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:36 pm
“the real producers (ie, not the fictitious ones in your head) have no problems with increased revenues via higher tax rates.”
As if John Q has actually met a real, live producer in his lifetime.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:37 pm
John Q, you don’t even know what a sock puppet is. Why should anyone believe anything you write?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:39 pm
“Further, if you seriously believe anyone (not just me) is going to go back a do research”
Your ignorance is noted and logged, Mr. Holmes. Of course, throwing out unsubstantiated claims is par for the course for you liberals, isn’t it?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:40 pm
Achieving progress does not mean one is a “progressive”, John Q.
But you’d have to understand the English language to know that little fact.
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
3:42 pm
Are there many elections where anyone couldn’t go cherry pick the states and demographic stats they want and say if this and if that, the R or D would have won?
There are a few, but not many.
It means nothing more than an esteem boost to the one cherry picking the data as well as providing comfort and solace from a defeat.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:49 pm
Glenn Beck, the election is over. Obama won. The House hasn’t changed hands. The Senate hasn’t changed hands.
NOTHING has changed in the big scheme of things.
The sooner you libs get a dose of reality after your post-election euphoria is when this government can move forward and make moderate deals on the issues facing this nation.
And as usual, Obama is failing in his leadership role to do anything remotely resembling that.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
3:50 pm
Obozo’s increased spending by $500 billion per year. The sequester is only $100 billion a year. We’ll be fine reducing his gross overspending by this meager amount.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
3:52 pm
You would think a Nobel Prize winner could do better than this clown.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:58 pm
“Obozo’s increased spending by $500 billion per year. ”
I don’t believe that is correct, LBB. It appears to be a one-time increase / reapportionment of existing dollars based on what I’ve read.
Hillbilly D
December 4th, 2012
4:02 pm
This is my 2¢ on what’s going to happen with the “fiscal cliff”. Between Christmas and New Year’s, there’ll be some kind of grand compromise, based largely on unrealistically rosy predictions and budget numbers pulled from thin air, with a healthy side order of can kicking tucked away in the fine print. We’ll hear all manner of pontificating about what a great day it is for America and how we been saved from ruin. By March/April, we’ll be right back where we are now. As Judy Collins would say…….there ought to be clowns……..don’t bother, they’re here.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
4:04 pm
No, it’s pretty much a step change of $500 billion above Bush’s last year.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
4:05 pm
OK, I understand your reference point now, LBB. I thought you were talking about his current proposal.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
4:08 pm
Federal spending, per Wikipedia:
2008 $2.9T
2009 $3.1T
2010 $3.6T
2011 $3.8T
2012 $3.7T
2013 $3.8T
Obozo: A fiscal disaster.
killerj
December 4th, 2012
4:15 pm
But we all know who pays for the squabbling in the end,expect higher taxes folks and eat your crow ,your gonna pay for big government to tell you what you can and cannot do.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
4:16 pm
John Q earns yet another face palm for his stupidity. How cute.
JDW
December 4th, 2012
4:19 pm
@LBB…”No, it’s pretty much a step change of $500 billion above Bush’s last year.”
As usual you don’t even know what Bush’s last fiscal year was…psssssttttt it was FY2009…the one that jumped $500 billion…dufus.
Hillbilly D
December 4th, 2012
4:20 pm
But we all know who pays for the squabbling in the end,
Agreed on that. There’ll be higher taxes, one way or another, and little or nothing in the way of spending cuts. How many times have we seen tax increases combined with spending cuts and then the cuts never materialize.
If I were running things, I’d start with an across the board spending cut of whatever percentage was workable, (granted it probably wouldn’t be very big but anything would be better than nothing). After we got that going, then we’d consider more revenue. I like the idea of trimming deductions, etc, rather than raising rates. At least see how it goes; you can always adjust as things pop up.
rtkMD
December 4th, 2012
4:22 pm
It appears that Mr. Windfield endorses Mr. Ponnuru’s suggestion that filibuster reform should ultimately help Republicans. So those on either side who are convinced that the Senate filibuster is counter-productive, please email your Senators, Republican and/or Democrat, particularly if any are the suspected fence-sitters: Feinstein (CA), Kerry (MA), Levin (MI), Pryor (AR), Baucus (MT), Reed (RI), Rockefeller (WV), and Donnelly (IN). It’s easy:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Sample message: Please support Senators Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall in their effort to make the 113th Senate accountable for all its rules via a vote on opening day, January 3, 2013. The Constitution authorizes you to make your own rules, and does not bind you to rules made by a previous Senate.
Please prepare to debate proposed rules, including Senator Harken’s thoughtful reforms regarding filibuster (he has proposed this while in the minority and majority), and then adopt by a simple majority vote Senate rules which allow the majority to act, while protecting the minority’s right to be heard.
Since you have the responsibility to make your rules, we will not accept your future plea that a minority has blocked legislation using rules you had the responsibility to draft. Nor will we accept your complaints that key executive positions are unfilled or judicial appointments are blocked by rules on which you failed to vote.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
4:22 pm
No, John Q. You’re simply that transparent and stupid, sonny.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
4:24 pm
JDW: “dufus”
———
You would appear to be in violation of Rule #2.
JDW
December 4th, 2012
4:24 pm
@LBB….”Federal spending, per Wikipedia”
As usual you are a lying sack of….well you know. The actual numbers are in millions:
2008….$2,982,544
2009….$3,517,677
2010….$3,456,213
2011….$3,603,061
2012 estimate….$3,795,547
2013 estimate…$3,803,364
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
JDW
December 4th, 2012
4:30 pm
@LBB…from rule number 2 “I will also have high tolerance for labels”…consider yourself labeled.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
4:33 pm
Hmm, so Obozo’s spending $700 billion more than Our President Bush did in the year prior to the recession?
Obozo’s an even bigger failure than I thought!
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
4:35 pm
You could at least spell it correctly. Doofus.
Mr. Holmes
December 4th, 2012
4:37 pm
Btw, I don’t see how anyone, right or left, could be opposed to at least returning to the days when a filibuster meant an actual filibuster–you gotta get up on that dais and talk, Senator. You stop talking, we start voting.
For the entertainment value alone, that change is worth making. And I’d be saying that regardless of which party is in control.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
4:37 pm
And “doofus” probably doesn’t fall into the category of labels. Your recent posts make it look more like a personal attack.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 4th, 2012
4:39 pm
Well, actually -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Total_Deficits_vs._National_Debt_Increases_2001-2010.png
Bush was responsible for 2007, his last budget proposal with a Congress his party controlled. In 2007, the libs took over the House and immediately began porking and larding up Bush’s proposed spending. So much, in fact, that he vetoed their bills numerous times and was over ridden.
But, to the fairy tale democrats, history is whatever spews from their filthy mouths, regardless of whether it’s true or not.
Progressive Humanist
December 4th, 2012
4:40 pm
Sorry, Tib. It’s the Democrats who are the producers and the Republicans who are the takers: http://taxfoundation.org/article/states-vary-widely-number-tax-filers-no-income-tax-liability
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 4th, 2012
4:40 pm
Does John Q serve a purpose here?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
4:40 pm
JDW, regardless of the calendar dates of the fiscal year, the spending was largely accomplished in 2009 when Obama was President, not when Bush was President. In addition, Obama supported every bit of those spending bills passed in late 2008 for FY 2009.
Progressive Humanist
December 4th, 2012
4:41 pm
4:40- Just another one of Tib’s fantasies dashed. The lady lives in a world of fiction.
JDW
December 4th, 2012
4:44 pm
@LBB…if I were going to make a personal attack it would be with something stronger than dufus….
No worries on the spelling, that is exactly what I meant…
JDW
December 4th, 2012
4:51 pm
@Tiberius…”regardless of the calendar dates of the fiscal year, the spending was largely accomplished in 2009 when Obama was President, not when Bush was President. In addition, Obama supported every bit of those spending bills passed in late 2008 for FY 2009.”
That lame argument has been made and debunked before. From FactCheck.org…
“Since pictures can convey information more efficiently than words, we’ll sum up the official spending figures in this chart. It also reflects our finding that Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion”
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
4:51 pm
Progressive Humanist, “producers” are not defined by their taxpaying status.
But nice try at deflection.
CC
December 4th, 2012
4:55 pm
John Q:
Your abdication of all logical and sensible thought is accepted. Your withdrawal from the world of the sane is noted.
JamVet
December 4th, 2012
4:57 pm
Everyone I know and read recognizes that it will take work to reach out to groups of voters who traditionally haven’t voted for Republicans.
??????????????????????????????????
Reach out to the lazy and stupid blacks on the Democratic plantation?
Reach out to the sluts, prostitutes and FemiNazis who want their birth control for free?
Reach out to 47% of America who are mooches and takers?
Reach out to the f*ggots like John Edwards? (Don’t ask me, ask that shrew Ann Coulter.)
Wow, Kyle talk about a willing suspension of disbelief!
You’ve got absolute lunatics in your ranks, in innumerable quantities. And guess what? More than a few of them are your supposed “leaders”. (Though there are a few less of them since November 6.)
So until you more rational Republcians acknowledge and marginalize them, you are gonna see more electoral thumpings like this last one.
Which is fine by me…
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
4:58 pm
JDW, analysis is your friend, although not your strong suit.
Obama supported each and every spending bill signed into law in 2008; while he was running and after he was elected. This government, despite it’s penchant for doling out dollars it doesn’t have, couldn’t possibly have spent over $500 billion between the November, 2008 election and the January inauguration of Obama.
The spending is just as much his as it is anyone else’s.
But nice attempt to cherry-pick pictures. Seems like that is all you can understand. Too bad they don’t tell the whole story.
Linda
December 4th, 2012
4:59 pm
JDW@4:51, You must have missed Obama’s ‘09 economic unstimulus bill that alone was almost $1 T, you know, the most expensive spending bill in the history of the world, you know, the one that cost more than both of the wars at the time it was passed. Glad to be of assistance.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
5:00 pm
“You’ve got absolute lunatics in your ranks, in innumerable quantities.”
Well, you’re here, AmVet, so in this rare case, you’re right.
Of course, the lunatic quotient drops over at Bookman’s when you come over here. . .
JDW
December 4th, 2012
5:02 pm
@Linda…”You must have missed Obama’s ‘09 economic unstimulus bill that alone was almost $1 T”
Why someone with such a fine economics degree should really know there is a difference between when money is authorized and spent….psssssttt…this is where the $203 billion comes from. Thats what was spent in FY2009.
As of today a total of $774 billion has been distributed…educate yourself
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx
JDW
December 4th, 2012
5:04 pm
@Tiberius…”Obama supported each and every spending bill signed into law in 2008; while he was running and after he was elected. This government, despite it’s penchant for doling out dollars it doesn’t have, couldn’t possibly have spent over $500 billion between the November, 2008 election and the January inauguration of Obama.”
Nice spin…
…not worth a bucket of warm spit but when you have so little to work with I guess its the best you can do.
JamVet
December 4th, 2012
5:05 pm
Imagine that.
The Crybabius stoops to yet another unprovoked personal insult.
He has been banned how many times for this immature act of his?
What is wrong with that boy? Must he be banished for good from here as well?
So be it. And I will certainly help the sorry fool with his mission…
JamVet
December 4th, 2012
5:05 pm
What’s the over/under on the Tiberius/Lil Bar sock puppet getting banned permanently from here within one week?
JDW
December 4th, 2012
5:06 pm
@John Q…”I’m guessing at 24.3 years”
Probably shorter than that…I don’t expect Tiberius has that many left in him…all that angst tends to shorten ones lifespan.
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
5:07 pm
John Q: Tiberius and Lil Barry are not the same person. Nor is Aesop. So, that’s enough of the guessing game.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
5:08 pm
“The Crybabius stoops to yet another unprovoked personal insult.”
This from the poster who serially insults – well – everyone.
Too funny!
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
5:13 pm
“What’s the over/under on the Tiberius/Lil Bar sock puppet coming to terms with the Obama presidency and the progressive ascendancy?”
I came to terms with the Obama Presidency on day one in November of 2008, John Q. That’s because I accept reality (unlike you).
The liberal ascendancy? Not so much. I know, (unlike you) that at some point the money will run out to pay for all the free stuff. At that point, the pendulum will either swing back to conservatism or the civilized world will end due to a world-wide economic collapse. There is no in-between.
Dusty
December 4th, 2012
5:15 pm
Well, just as I thought, another whole day of mostly insults, jeers and repudiations. It is a shame that Americans have to act like unruly children in front of the world. If we are to continue to have elections, something has to change. We cannot keep acting like it is a mammoth dogfight every fourth year.Then snarl vilely and go rabid after each election..
We are supposed to be proud of our freedom, our country and ourselves. Acting like the proverbial jackass in public does not present any of those classifications.
Kyle tries to present ideas and consideration and I appreciate that, even if I complain sometimes. The least bloggers can do is try as hard as he does and do it for your country. In other words, it’s time to shutup and think sometimes. (Just like your mother always said when you were a brat.).
CC
December 4th, 2012
5:20 pm
Kyle Wingfield @5:07:
Thank you SO MUCH!
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 4th, 2012
5:37 pm
So, other than being here to taunt other bloggers, it looks like John Q’s purpose is to be wrong about everything.
I guess it does have some use.
CC
December 4th, 2012
5:42 pm
Aesop:
“I guess it does have some use.”
Sure does! Serves a a bad example . . .
Mario Gonzales
December 4th, 2012
5:46 pm
All this does is make the Senators get off their lazy butts and actually filibuster. If they’re serious about opposing something, it should not make a difference.
Actually speaking and debating, then voting – yeah, that’s unAmerican!!!! Wait…
Linda
December 4th, 2012
6:04 pm
Wouldn’t be great if Democratic Senators were required to read the Constitution or an economics textbook while filibustering?
CC
December 4th, 2012
6:27 pm
“Wouldn’t be great if Democratic Senators were required to read the Constitution or an economics textbook while filibustering?”
Linda, there’s little in the Constitution that they haven’t attempted to subvert and economics is WAY above their pay grade!
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
6:34 pm
Funny when some want parse the election numbers in efforts to downplay the defeat it is great discussion, but when told it is still a defeat those same indivduals no likey so much.
Irony is a muther
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
6:37 pm
CC
Tell us all exactly what has been subverted, when, the circumstances and what was done about it.
Thanks for your opinion, but hold off on that while you display the facts exactly as you know them to be and can substantiate.
Linda
December 4th, 2012
6:52 pm
Glenn@6:37, I would start with Article X. The Constitution was designed to limit the fed. govt. & protect the rights of the states. That has been circumvented for generations. The fed. govt. has NO AUTHORITY under the Constitution to do about 60% of what it has done & is doing, which, coincidentally, accounts for ALL of our debt. Read the powers of the congress & decide for yourself.
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
7:09 pm
Linda
You haven’t told me exactly what was done, when and the specifics. What did the courts say?
I knew CC didn’t have the ability to back up his blather.
Now you come with generalities.
CC
December 4th, 2012
7:10 pm
Linda@6:52:
I’m not even going to play his game. If he is that ignorant, it is willful ignorance.
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
7:15 pm
CC can’t back up his typical void of fact nothings so he says others are ignorant…
He is still reeling from the election.
CC, let facts be your friend. Opining is nice, but as usual you are whining
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
7:21 pm
CC
You must put yourself on ice each night? You are like a candle that when lit slowly melts down, but when the wax cools, it hardens again and is ready for the next meltdown
Linda
December 4th, 2012
7:31 pm
Glenn@7:09, It’s apparent that you have never read Article X, let alone the entire Constitution or the Federalist Papers. You are asking me to give you the same high school education that I & my husband received, one that evidently you did not. If you are willing to come over, we can start in the morning. My fees are exorbitant & must be paid under the table to circumvent Obama’s taxes on the taxpayers making $200,000 per year who don’t have a dime to their names.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
7:33 pm
“Funny when some want parse the election numbers in efforts to downplay the defeat it is great discussion, but when told it is still a defeat those same indivduals no likey so much. ”
Funny when some people actually admit that Obama won, others continue to “spike the ball” and continue to over-inflate the results like Glenn Beck.
Too bad some people can’t move past the election and move onto governing.
CC
December 4th, 2012
7:49 pm
“You must put yourself on ice each night?”
No, but I have put YOU on ice . . . permanently.
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
7:50 pm
Linda
No actual examples or just more generalities?
I’m sure you have an actual example to match the rhetoric, correct?
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
7:51 pm
And again CC is unable to back up his blather with facts
Nothing new
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
7:56 pm
Tiberius
When you start and run your blog, feel free to set any rules and parameters you wish. Knock youself out
Outside of that, Kyle will let me know if he is concerned about what I post.
You can call for a surrender, say color me shocked or whatever other mundane things you say on your next post…
Linda
December 4th, 2012
8:12 pm
Glenn@7:50, These are not generalities. They are Constitutional authorities. I’m not playing your game. Do your OWN homework.
The question is not if, but when, the US ceases to exist. You guys voted for this guy to continue to campaign, not lead. The debt exceeded the GDP in Aug.,’11. The debt will be $20.3 T by ‘16 & $25.4 T by ‘22, according to Obama. The GDP rose only 3.16 during the entire Clinton adm. We are on the road to Greece.
Republicans & Democrats have no clue as to agenda of the progressives.
CC
December 4th, 2012
8:20 pm
Linda@8:12:
“They are Constitutional authorities. I’m not playing your game. Do your OWN homework.”
That’s his game: you research and post, he takes random shots like a poorly trained sniper. His only game is to irritate and cause efforts by others which he will never accept. You note that he never posts anything of substance?
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
8:30 pm
And again when was the Constitution subverted and what was the outcome?
You blather like little CCs pizza.
Linda
December 4th, 2012
8:37 pm
CC@8:20, Voters would have NEVER voted for this fraud had they understood his agenda. They still do not know who he is, where he came from or where he is going, thanks to the non-FOX news media. He was never vetted. ALL his records are sealed, from elementary school through college. No one remembers him in college. His neighbors have never met him. His family, including his sister, are not a part of his life, never been to the White House. Jarrett has Secret Service protection. George Soros is the real president of the US.
Linda
December 4th, 2012
8:44 pm
Glenn@8:30, Over & out. Lazy as the Mississippi River.
Kyle’s first book will be named “Arguing With Liberals: Same As Arguing With Dead People, Who, By the Way, Vote for Democrats, Who, By the Way, Vote the Same Way As Felons.”
Janet Johnson
December 4th, 2012
9:03 pm
If the Republican far-right-winged-tea party want to go down in history as the “do nothing Congress”, and continue to filibuster everything, the American people will wake up & just vote them all out of Washington DC. I can’t believe the Republicans voted down the UN bill for the Disabled. How sick are they?
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
9:14 pm
Linda
Like cc, you talk is much more stellar than your walk…
Linda
December 4th, 2012
9:15 pm
Janet@9:03, Wasn’t it the Democrats who voted to take away the existing Medicaid benefits for every beneficiary in the entire country if the states did not expand their Medicaid roles?
Linda
December 4th, 2012
9:18 pm
Janet@9:03, Were the Republicans protecting the sovereignty of the US against intrusion by the UN?
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 4th, 2012
9:24 pm
The UN bill for the disabled allowed for the disabled to be targeted in their mother’s womb and aborted.
How sick are you?
@@
December 4th, 2012
9:27 pm
Why filibuster reform could backfire big-time on Democrats
Harry’s looking for a sausage blowout?
Of course he is…he’s a porker.
schnirt
Linda
December 4th, 2012
9:30 pm
Glenn@9:14, CC & I were not trying to gang up on you, but the score is:
Linda & CC: 2505
Glenn: minus 3520
That’s according to the CBO who can’t find its way around the BEA.
You do know what the BEA is, don’t you?
Did my Tom cat find his way over to your abode? He brought home a tongue a few minutes ago. Good excuse not to answer my questions.
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
9:33 pm
@@
Just like those Republicans House members, Senators and Governors who cry and whine about the stimulus, yet had their hand in that same cookie jar, uh?
Triple shnirt
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
9:40 pm
JDW: Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion
——————-
Last time I checked, it was 2012, and Obozo was still spending $700 billion more per year than we were before the recession, which ended 3-1/2 years ago.
Obozo is a disaster on spending. Of course, the parasites like that he’s spending it on them, hence the votes, the popularity, and the media slavishness.
Obozo: Failure.
Linda
December 4th, 2012
9:55 pm
Glenn@9:33, After the economic non-stimulus bill was passed in ‘09, the most expensive bill ever passed in the history of the world, a bill the Republicans were opposed to, did you expect the Republicans to boycott/strike against receiving funds from it?
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
10:07 pm
Linda
It is called politics. They duped you (that wasn’t hard) into thinking they were against it with their vote and mouth, knowing the whole time they were going to take the money.
It is called hypocrisy.
Those who voted against it, but didn’t take anything should be applauded. Those who cry but took are weasels
JDW
December 4th, 2012
10:08 pm
@LBB…from 2008 to 2012 the federal budget has increased by 27% in total…which is WAY less than the 44% Rornnie Raygun increased it in the comparable period from 1980 to 1984. It is also much less than the 32% increase under Bush one between 1988 and 1992 and the same as the 27%Duhbya increased it in the between 2000 and 2004.
I am guessing you didn’t blather much in any of those cases…why now LBB?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
10:12 pm
Why now? Because Obozo is responsible for it now. Duh!
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
10:18 pm
Also note that, at 25% of GDP, Obozo’s disastrous spending is much, much higher than the long-run average of 20% or less.
By any measure, Obozo is a huge failure. At things that actually, matter, that is. He’s great at opinion polls and favorable “fact” checking stories put out by a slavish, bending-over-forward press.
JDW
December 4th, 2012
10:42 pm
@LBB…”By any measure, Obozo is a huge failure.”
No LBB, the only failure around here is you flailing around trying to justify your unjustifiable hate for the President.
We have gone from negative GDP growth to positive, from negative job growth to positive, from the brink of meltdown to relative stability and from a plunging stock market to a growing one…no the only failure here can be seen every morning when you look in the mirror.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 5th, 2012
7:07 am
Trillion dollar deficits, four years of 8% unemployment, a new stimulus proposal three years into the recovery, record federal spending, record numbers of folks on the dole, credit rating downgrade….
Failure.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 5th, 2012
7:17 am
“Looking at American wage data, it is not hard to see why spending is falling across the board. The Commerce Department also reported that incomeswere flat in October, rising less than 0.1 percent. However, the longer-term trend is even more worrisome for American households. Average hourly earnings at private employers have dropped almost every month on an inflation-adjusted basis since February 2011, according to Bloomberg and data from the Labor Department.”
(Sorry, the blog choked on the link apparently…you can google it)
——–
Obozo: Failure. At things that actually matter.