Snark: to annoy or irritate

"Snark" has been in English language dictionaries since at least 1906, and Lewis Carroll used the word to describe a mythological animal in his poem, The Hunting of the Snark (1874). Most recently, the word has come to characterize snappish, sarcastic, or mean-spirited comments or actions directed at those who annoy or irritate us.

At first, this blog was just going be a place to gripe, but because it's more satisfying to take action than it is to merely complain, now most of the posts/reposts suggest ways to get involved in solving problems.


Saturday, January 29, 2011

Filibuster Reform: Thank 3 Senators


take action!
Clicking here will automatically add your name to this petition to Sens. Tom Udall, Tom Harkin and Jeff Merkley:


The end game for Senate rules reform has become clear, and it's not pretty. Despite the best efforts of Senators Merkley, Tom Udall and Harkin, in the near future we're likely to see only a weak, bipartisan gesture towards Senate reform. At most there will be a few minor tweaks to how the Senate is run without any attempt to address its underlying dysfunction. While disappointed, we cannot and will not stop fighting for reform as long as the Senate remains a place where good legislation goes to die. The stakes are simply too high.

And as we recommit to this fight, we should recognize the tremendous effort by Democratic champions for filibuster reform, particularly Sens. Tom Udall, Jeff Merkley and Tom Harkin to put this issue on the table.
By all accounts, the overwhelming majority of Senate Democrats supported the move known as the "Constitutional Option" to fix the filibuster and other Senate rules by majority vote. This would allow Democrats to change the rules with 51 votes.
However, the Constitutional Option was only available on the first "legislative day" of a new session of Congress (a technical term that does not correspond to a calendar day).
When the Senate adjourned on Tuesday night, the first legislative day ended, and the Democrats lost their only opportunity in this session of Congress to pass Senate rules reform with a simple majority vote. Any rules changes in this Congress now face a 2/3rds supermajority requirement to pass, and nothing significant will have the votes to overcome that threshold.
The inability of the Democrats to capitalize on this opportunity is a substantive failure for all of us who wanted to see Senate reform enacted any time soon. But even more than that, it demonstrates a monumental failure of leadership by the top Democrats in the Senate.
Democratic leaders like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer have time and again blamed Republican filibusters for their inability to move the Democratic legislative agenda through the Senate.
This was a sentiment shared by their colleagues. Just a month ago, Democrats in the Senate were so fed up with the endless abuse of the filibuster by Republicans that every single returning senator in the Democratic caucus signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about the need for rules reform.
However, a handful of reluctant Democrats (we've been told as few as six or seven) were unwilling to support the Constitutional Option. And Democratic leadership decided it would rather negotiate with Republicans than bring the caucus into line.
Nominally, these holdout Democrats were worried about setting a precedent for the Republicans — under the false notion that not taking action when they had the chance would make Republicans hesitant to change the rules to their own advantage when they eventually regain the majority.
In essence, these weak-kneed Democrats were willing to forfeit any chance at governance in the next two years, including giving up a reasonable chance to address the crisis in the judiciary and end the Republicans hostage-taking approach to judicial appointments. And all in the hopes that when the Republicans take power they will play nice.
The Democratic leadership faced a choice — they could whip the votes for the Constitutional Option and undercut the ability of the Republican minority to abuse the rules, or they could accept the decision by a fraction of their members to give the Republicans what is in effect a veto over the Democratic agenda. I think you know what they chose.
When push came to shove, rather than address the issue of filibuster reform head on, the Democratic leadership forfeited their ability to stop the abuses.
We now face a long-term effort to fix the Senate. Without buy-in from the leadership of the Democratic caucus, we'll continue to need rank and file Democrats like Sens. Udall, Merkley and Harkin to join us in this fight.
And as they continue fighting, they need to know we support them.
Thank you for standing up for real filibuster reform.
Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.