One thought has gripped my mind the entire day, and that is: what if Martha Coakley fails today and Scott P. Brown breaks the Democrats' filibuster-proof majority before HCR can pass? Would the failure of one person to fill a traditionally Democratic seat on the heels of a weak campaign and observation of national holidays (she took Thanksgiving off instead of campaigning) lead to the failure of one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation in recent memory?
I hope not, otherwise there's a cottage in the middle of French wine-country in our future.
To bring (probably) a lot of you up to date, today's special election to fill the vacant Senate seat left by the late Ted Kennedy has gone to the wire with Republican Scott P. Brown pulling ahead of heavy Democratic favorite Martha Coakley in the fading hours before the vote. Scott P. Brown not only falls largely lockstep with his Republican comrades in both obstructionism and social injustice, but his larger potential legacy is as being the deciding vote that provides Republicans with an unperturbed filibuster in the Healthcare Reform debate. This could effectively kill the legislation that most have poured their heart and soul into for the past year.
I've been reading Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival", the historical record of why the Iraq war was an example of American imperialism, documented before even history could unveil that fact. Besides Chomsky's story of American greed, he also highlights the (proven) Republican tradition of rewarding the economic and political elite for their me-first atrocities against man.
My thought of the day is this: knowing that the general's involved in the Iraqi liberation front were given such lofty posts because of their involvement in numerous crimes-against-humanity (such as the dismantling of Nicaragua, the forging of alliances with Saddam Husein, and the Iran-contra affair), it is unfortunate that everyday voters cannot see that the current Republican line is built on such a legacy of economic elitism and violent disdain toward the free exercise of basic human and civil rights.
Read the book, it's a page turner. That'll be $20.00 Mr. Chomsky.
What are your thoughts? What does Coakley's (potential) defeat mean to our conception of progress?
4 comments:
Okay, so, I've got to ask...what happens if we do lose the filibuster-proof majority? As I understand it, calling "filibuster" (as it were) requires the blocking party to continuously talk while maintaining the filibuster. Yes, it is possible to filibuster for weeks, and that has been done, but not since before the advent of instantaneous news (since the 40's according to Wiki). So I truly wonder if the Republicans would be able to maintain any length of filibuster under the constant scrutiny of the media. After a short amount of time, they'd just come off as obstructionist and lose what support they have.
You'd think that after the past decade they'd already be seen as obstructionist but, as always, it all depends on what gets out to the public. Republicans are good at that. Then again so are Democrats...
Liz is correct, it's been years since a filibuster has been forced to exist in its pure form. Usually the majority just drops a measure if they can't prevail in a vote to invoke cloture (60 votes).
I'm just sick of Democrats trying to be the nice guys when the Republicans see it as a gang war. Make them filibuster or vote against a whole laundry list of narrowly-defined actions that are widely popular with the American people. The Gingrich shut down of the federal government illustrates that the only time Democrats have actually prevailed over the last 30 years is when they've grabbed a folding chair, stepped into the ring, and aimed it right at the heads of the opposition.
Considering the spectacle present in modern politics, pro-wrestling metaphors just seem extremely appropriate!
Post a Comment