Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Speaker Ryan?
In the circumstances, Paul Ryan’s conditions for running for Speaker strike me as entirely reasonable. You?
Agree. I go back and forth on eliminating it. Very opportunistic.
I would have to read his argument.
I don’t think it automatically follows that in a deadlocked Congress the executive runs away and usurps power.
That is true, but the media will portray anything republicans do as negative. That is a battle we will never win.
The best we can hope for is to go direct and somehow circumvent the media.
It is the seed of something. It’s good to know that some people recognize that we need more outlets than the MSM (where our message is blocked and distorted) and talk radio (where we are only talking to allies and not the the population as a whole). I don’t think YouTube is nearly enough, but it’s a start.
On the reconciliation vs. eliminating the filibuster thing, keep in mind that Ryan was the VP candidate, not top of the ticket. If Romney didn’t want him to talk about dumping the filibuster, he wasn’t going to do it. I’m not sure Ryan’s ever waded in either way on that one. From his current post, he’d probably say it’s a decision for the Senate. He can work on reconciliation; he can’t change Senate rules. So of course he’s going to talk more about the thing he knows.
The Democrats could have abolished the filibuster already and didn’t — because it’ll be incredibly easy to present as a massive power grab. If it stays intact it’s still some protection if and when we lose the Senate. Now if they have anything they want to do, they’ll likely enough do away with it themselves, but in that case by all means they should be the ones to take the heat for it, too.
Totally, totally worth it if you accomplish anything substantial at all, but probably not just to give Obama a bill to veto. It would be political malfeasance to abolish the filibuster just in time for the Democrats to win the Senate majority.
Eric, I don’t have a plan or interest in eliminating it. I am trying to square Son of Spengler’s comment regarding Ryan as VP candidate saying they could eliminate 85% of Obamacare through reconciliation with both ends of Pennsylvania Ave and assuming <60R’s in the Senate.
If that is correct, and I have no reason to doubt SoS, then we begin to address the risk of repealing the filibuster to repeal 100% of it.
I think we would be better off without the filibuster in general, but that is as much emotional opinion as anything.
Which is fine. But circumventing the media should work (or not work) regardless of whether Republican reforms are dying in the senate or to vetoes.
Not automatic, but it is a very probable outcome in 21st century America, at least to some degree.
Constitutionally, and in actual reality, “Congress” can block the President doing almost anything. But for the most part that power lies in Congress as a body, not with a simple majority. A deadlocked Congress can’t wield it.
A simple majority can’t do so fully, either. Conservatives keep looking at what the Constitution says Congress can do and are frustrated that Republicans won’t do it — but we have to take into account that Republicans do not have the full power of the Congress. The most powerful tools to restrain a president require a supermajority.
Sure, Republicans have been flailing. They’re disunited and have leadership problems. But they are also flailing because they are denied the tools the situation requires. The larger travesty for the country is the Democratic Party’s complete unwillingness to hold this president accountable for absolutely anything whatsoever. It would take only 1/3 of the Democratic caucus in each chamber willing to draw some lines in the sand — and likely enough the president would never cross them.
Conservatism and the country would be far, far better served if the movement focused slightly less on Republican failings and slightly more on the Democrats who fail to do their job out of party loyalty or ideology.
The MSM is also partly responsible on this account. And some portion of the American people are responsible. I’m not sure this would happen if more people weren’t outraged.
The media has a huge part of the responsibility.
Blaming Republicans’ failure to communicate effectively on a hostile MSM is a copout. There are lots of ways for a Republican to talk to his constituents and to his Democrat neighbor’s constituents than simply relying on the press.
Eric Hines
Those media lies would be easier to penetrate.
Based on what?
Common sense.
Which would you prefer to argue when confronted with an assertion that the Republicans shut down funerals for veterans:
1) You: The Republicans passed a funeral funding bill and Obama vetoed it because he wants to hold the dead vets hostage to get funding for unrelated stupid program X.
2) You: The Democrats won’t let the Republicans pass a funeral funding bill because Obama wants to hold the dead vets hostage to get funding for unrelated stupid program X.
The problem with 2) is that the leftist then says: “Well that’s just what you say. I heard that the Republicans wanted to do something evil in the bill and thank Gaia the Democrats stopped them!” In 1) you have the passed bill as proof that there was nothing evil included.
You can say the something about the bill that was killed in the senate. You’ve drawn no distinction, let alone a useful one.