Heck, What's another Broken Promise? Senate Dems Vote for Power Grab

Michael Schaus
|
Posted: Nov 22, 2013 12:41 AM
Heck, What's another Broken Promise? Senate Dems Vote for Power Grab

Well. . . Harry Reid has gone nuclear. Yesterday the Senate, with cheerleading from Democrats in the House of Representatives and our honesty-deprived White House, passed a rule that would strip the minority party of its right to filibuster most Presidential nominees. The move itself (known as the “nuclear option”) usurps the Senate’s traditional eye toward minority rights, and dismantles the republican form of deliberation for which the Senate is known. The truly audacious part of the Senate Democrat’s power grab, however, was their blatant hypocrisy. After all, in 2005 they voted against this very rule change.

Now don’t get me wrong. . . It’s not as if I represent, or belong to, a party that is as pure as the wind driven snow. After all, I think most people would agree that a politician of any party would likely be the first person you would meet (after lawyers and used car salesmen) if you were unfortunate enough to not make the guest-list into Heaven. But, given their willingness to break promises, there seems to be a fair chance that the politician would be a registered Democrat. (Especially if they’re dead, and from Chicago.) But that blanket charge of less-than pure intentions should hardly exempt Democrat leadership from bearing the slings and arrows of public outrage.

At issue is a filibuster rule (employed heavily by Democrats when they were in the minority) that can often slow the President’s nominees for key positions to a crawl. Harry Reid, and his Democrat colleagues, decided that such a “super majority” is too cumbersome for Presidential nominees. . . And so, like a child who alters the game when he gets the ball, Reid and Senate Democrats changed the senate rules. Now only a simple majority is needed to approve of Presidential nominees. Only 51 votes (out of 100 for those of you who need to brush up on civics class) will be needed to confirm candidates for key executive positions. In other words: Who ever owns the Senate, will henceforth own the process.

For the moment, we’ll pass over the conversation about majority politics, the Senate’s traditional eye toward prolonged deliberation, and representative government that protects the interests of minority parties. More at issue is the fact that the move illustrated the left’s insatiable appetite for consolidation of power.

Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden all spoke to the necessity of the rule change. Barack Obama praised the move, explaining that it was necessary due to congressional gridlock. Our campaigner in chief even explained that the Senate needs the flexibility to (essentially) ignore the will of the minority party.

Joe Biden expressed his support for the rule change while he was purchasing lunch yesterday. (Well. . . Actually he had to borrow some money from a staffer in order to pay for the meal – once again proving that Democrats are very proficient at spending other people’s money.)

And Harry Reid, of course, spoke at length about the valuable efficiency this rule change will make to Senate confirmation hearings. In his speech he discussed the current gridlock and inefficiency of DC. And, to an extent, he’s right. . . It is really hard to get things done in the Senate when the Senate Majority Leader (Reid) refuses to bring a budget to the floor, or allow Republican proposals to be heard. Apparently it is easier for Harry to break a promise than negotiate with Republicans.

For a full, and complete, argument against the changes that the Senate Leader (Reid) made yesterday with support from Joe Biden and Barack Obama, I direct your attention to the past. . . When all three sang about the Constitutional crises such a move would inflict upon the US government. (Of course, it was different then: Republicans were proposing the rule change.)

[A nuclear option] is a black chapter in the history of the Senate. I hope we never, ever get to that again because I really do believe it will ruin our country.

I pray God, when the Democrats take back control, we don’t do the kind of naked power grab that [the GOP] is doing now.

If the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse.

We Must Protect ‘Free and Democratic Debate’

“I think this [voting against the “nuclear option”] is the single most significant vote anyone of us will cast in my 32 years in the Senate.

Had enough? Well, you can find more on Google if needed.

The rule change really highlights two key points:

Primarily it demonstrates the willingness our leaders possess to abandon their promises, values, and concerns. It highlights their irrevocable loss of honesty, and their compulsive desire to spew out whatever sentence they think will sell with the American public. Promises, to these “leaders”, are little more than momentary comments designed to elicit support from a generally uninformed public. I am not using the following words loosely or with flippancy, but as a technical and clinical description of all three previously mentioned politicos: Hypocritical, lying, con-artists. And, in this case, such a description could very well be applied to the Republicans who previously supported such a scheme, only to oppose it now that it damages their party’s ability to fight Obama’s nominees.

Secondarily, the rule change highlights the short-sighted nature of politicians in general. Mr. Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, should honestly answer one question: Are they prepared for Republicans to wield the same power they just granted themselves? No party will forever remain in dominance. The day when Democrats cringe at their political opponent’s use of majority power in the Senate might just come sooner than they think.

Of course, I guess all Democrats involved will be able to say that they “voted against it, before they voted for it.”