Cloture Reform

Long overdue and much needed. Along with his co-sponsorship of Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve (HR 1207 and S 604), this seems like another winning issue for Grayson.

Could we get a few more Dems like him with verifiable backbones to replace those cowardly, interminably waffling “blue dog” jerkoffs like Kent Conrad, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu?

And looking at this from a Canadian perspective, how do you think it would play here if our upper chamber required some arbitrary “supermajority” to pass bills into legislation that were presented to them by the House of Commons?

5 Comments

Filed under US Politics

5 responses to “Cloture Reform

  1. “Could we get a few more Dems like him … ?”

    Who’s this “we,” Kanuckosabe?

  2. LOL and duly noted.

    But might I suggest you roundly castigate all of the Bloggin’ Tories who likewise empathize with their Republican counterparts on a regular basis and blog incessantly about affairs south of the border.

    Additionally, I might add that in our fantabulous, wonderfully globalized world (brought to us in large part by the neo-liberal right-wingers) we all have a stake in each others’ politics…

  3. Mark McLaughlin

    “And looking at this from a Canadian perspective, how do you think it would play here if our upper chamber required some arbitrary “supermajority” to pass bills into legislation that were presented to them by the House of Commons?”

    If it were to be suggested now it would certainly be pretty rich. Just as the Conservatives are about to get a majority in the Senate, the Liberals start to muse about making that not good enough.

    Oh, and the Senate in the US is elected, for what that’s worth. It does have more credibility due to that fact alone. It’s also a big reason US budgets get out of hand. They all think they need to throw in some pork for their constituants.

    Neither system is perfect.

  4. Mark — If it were to be suggested now it would certainly be pretty rich. Just as the Conservatives are about to get a majority in the Senate, the Liberals start to muse about making that not good enough.

    I wasn’t suggesting it as an option — I’m quite happy with the 50+1 rule (or whatever the actual numbers are… you get the drift) and nobody is musing over any such change here. I just threw that out to contextualize it to our own situation.

    Oh, and the Senate in the US is elected, for what that’s worth.

    Not much in democratic terms; but quite a lot in the countless millions of dollars plowed into phony campaigns for re-election, of which all but a tiny handful of races are actually competitive.

  5. I actually like having an appointed Senate, myself. Sure it tends to overbalance one way or t’other, but that’s fine and all part of the cycle. Plus it shows what a principle-free hack Harper is, every single day that Senator Duffy spends his travel allowance.

    Imagine an elected US Senate trying to post a sensible report on The War On Drugs. Never happen.

    Whereas ours said pot should be decriminalized, and they could say it because they don’t have to win popularity contests every four years.

    The only flaw in the appointment system is that it requires someone with brains to appoint it. Which we’re currently lacking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s