does not like green eggs or ham, damned.

I suppose Ted Cruz gives a good illustration of the argument for the peeling away of the Senate’s new 60 vote threshold norm over to “If you want to Filibuster, we gotta make it so you’re talking”.  In the gauge of debating the merits of various filibuster reforms, I’d seen the “There’s no shortage of right wing think tank studies these politicos can throw out there”.  True enough, but what we see with Ted Cruz’s adventures is … a now “iconic” “Green Eggs and Ham” reading, political theater that is largely mockable.   Even if it solidifies his fan club — “Ted Cruz Takes His Stand” — and fund-raising — I think Democrats can take Wendy Davis’s filibuster in Texas over Ted Cruz’s in the US Senate.

(There are, of course, other methods of political theater available for political figures.  See the current storyline about David Vitter.  Interesting to note, googling David Vitter brings up a famous photograph of Al Franken — which begs the question of a recurring keyword search to my blog about Senators in Diaper — who is everyone looking for?)

So we get two different sets of tweets and live blog comments.  And a dizzying “bottom half of the Internet” which is best left ignored.

Inevitably historical perspective commenting weighs in to argue that “we’ve been here before”.  Also, we get from some sources a dizzying narrative — see here at Reason — on how this ought be blamed on the Senate Democrats, because… urm?  This is legitimate procedure somehow?  The polls seem to be pretty clear that the public understands the problem of partisan brinkmanship in using this process to undo a legislative accomplishment from the other party, whatever its merits or detriments.  I half wonder if this would be the moment that “Obamacare”‘s poll ratings shift into the favorable

Whether or not this is “new”… and we get this fact check report to judge this.

Democratic Senator Harry Byrd against Dwight Eisenhower on Highway Construction.  I think history vindicates Eisenhower on this one.  Also, it’s worth noting the flavor of “Democratic Party” credentials of Harry Byrd… Harry Byrd didn’t vote for any Democratic Presidential candidate after Roosevelt in 1932… and was this lagging force in the party’s evolution (Eisenhower mocked the two contradictory wings of the party while trying to carve out the meaning of “Modern Republicanism”.)
Democrats against Nixon for Post-Watergate Campaign Finance Reform.  Okay, this was a cheap shot.  But we’re still a ways off from the end-game, and it ends up with a lot of bluster.
Republicans in the Reagan Administration stock-piling conservative social issues — school prayer — to be wiped out by the end.  This is called political grand-standing.  I don’t think History vindicates them much.
And some popular concessions were pulled out against Carter in the midst of the Oil Embargo.

Yeah.  And didn’t John Calhoun do something?

Leave a Reply