But sometimes… it’s just too easy.

Senator Harkin writing about the need to change filibuster procedures in the Senate in order to make it easier to stop one.  At the Huffinton post (whole thing here):

…the unprecedented abuse of the filibuster by Republicans is no joke.

…The problem is not only that Republicans are using the filibuster to kill good bills that would help working Americans. The larger problem is that the Republicans’ indiscriminate use of the filibuster has made it all but impossible to conduct everyday business in the Senate. On an almost daily basis, the Republican minority — just 41 Senators — stops bills from even coming to the floor for debate and amendment.

…The Senate cannot continue down this path of obstruction, paralysis, and de facto minority rule. That is why I have introduced a bill to change the Standing Rules of the Senate to reform the cloture procedure in the United States Senate…

& the almost perfect statement from Mr. Harkin, his insistence on his consistency:

….I want to emphasize that I am offering this bill with clean hands. I introduced the exact same bill in 1995, when Democrats were in the minority in the Senate. So this legislation is not about one party or the other gaining advantage. It is about the Senate, as an institution, operating more fairly, effectively, and small-d democratically….

As I read this I thought…. it seems the parties have changed sides once again as I recall Republicans trying to do this during the Bush years.  & after about an entire 30 second search (more than either the Huffington Post or Mr. Harkin can do) I found this great quote when the Republicans were attempting similar things (NY Times, 2005):

…Democrats asserted one after another today that the Republican leadership’s attempt to bypass the filibuster – a procedural obstacle that requires 60 of the Senate’s 100 votes to overcome – is an attempt to change two centuries of Senate tradition. To do so, said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, would be “the end of the Senate as we know it” because it would dash the protections that the Senate has always afforded lawmakers in the minority and, by extension, their constituents….

So apparently, we have, according him, he was for filibuster reform in 1995, against it in 2005, and for it in 2010.

& for consistency sake, there is very likely a Republican doing similar flips.  President Obama spoke about the anger the public had at, not just individual parties or individual politicians, but at politics in general.  Back room deals, lying for political expediency, et, etc, etc.

Of course he went on in his State of the Union speech to claim another reason people are angry: that the government doesn’t work for the people.  It should be faster, more efficient, and more responsive to the people’s needs.

Funny thing though, this is exactly why the filibuster is needed, exactly what it is intended for, and exactly why Mr. Harkin & Mr. Obama are both wrong.

Among other reasons, historically the most “efficient” governments, are among the most oppressive.  We no longer seem to understand this as a society, but those governments able to move quickly are more apt to make bad decisions.  Since government is composed of humans, it has the same tendencies which humans have.  One of those tendencies is that our first, quick answer, on complex questions is usually wrong.

Which is perfectly ok – when only become successful, through our failures.  Due to the government’s power however, even short term failures can result in very long term negative consequences.

Therefore, we have a government designed to be deliberative versus efficient.  One way through separation of powers – where each branch has the power to prevent the other to act.  This by itself prevents too much impetuousness.

The filibuster, is not specifically Constitutional, as the Constitution only provided that each body could set their own rules through a majority vote.   However, filibuster rules were adopted  in the House near the very founding of that body and then adopted by Senate some years later.

& for me – they seem to follow a very logical understanding of both governments and human tendencies.  Not only that, but the filibuster also reinforces the fact that we are not and never have been a direct democracy.  Tyranny by the majority is still tyranny and if, hypothetically, lots of Senators or Congressmen wish to take away my rights, I’ll be grateful for just one to stand up and try to obstruct as much as possible.  If nothing else, draw attention to it and delay it long enough to get citizens engaged.

For me though – two times in my life the government has supposedly “shut down” & I was always happy.  The things they said would happen, mass chaos because no social security checks or military pay (I was in the military during one shut down) never happened.   The only thing I was sure of, was the government wasn’t making more laws and overall that’s likely to be a good thing.

Starting sometime last week, you could see the narratives shaping up in anticipation of a Brown victory based upon the trends of the poll data.  On January 9th, people still believe in Coakley (here):

…Buoyed by a huge advantage with independents and relative disinterest from Democratic voters in the state, Republican Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 48-47….

…All that said Coakley can certainly still win this race, perhaps even by a comfortable margin….

Indeed, Real Clear Politics shows polling from various sources starting in September (here), showing a 30+ lead for Coakely being worn down to a tie in early January, then to a 9+ lead leading into the election.

However, the expected Brown win, was still an upset.  Both the fact that MA is a Democratic state that Barak won by 28 points and the fact the vacant seat was a Democratic torch bearer who is recently deceased… any way you wish to view this, it is a failure on the part of the Democratic party to have lost.

The narratives of course focus on “who” to blame – for the Republicans, this is sure sign that Barak’s agenda is being pushed to the side by the American people (here):

…Seeing President Barack Obama reverse course and make a last minute/last ditch effort to save the Coakley campaign brings back memories of November, when Obama put his prestige and political capital on the line in an unsuccessful attempt to save the gubernatorial campaigns of New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and Virginia’s Creigh Deeds.

Combined, those two elections were a stinging rebuke of the Obama Agenda–higher taxes, government control of health care and out of control spending….

While for the Democrats, Barak isn’t hurt in the least by the pathetic showing from Coakley (here):

…The usual blame Obama faction in this community were quick to criticize the President for being the reason Martha Coakley lost her bid to replace Ted Kennedy in his long held Senate seat….

…If anything, the media spin had a lot more to do with the ascendency of Scott Brown than anything Barack Obama or Democrats had done….

Even going so far as to blame the media:

…The first year of the Obama Presidency has been a year of spin.  He has been scrutinized more than any other President in history. In some respect, this extreme coverage has created an anxiety about this President that, at times, has verged upon negative fanaticism, where daily hurdles are created and expectations have become increasingly unrealistic. For some on the fringe, Obama seems to have become the cause of all that ills America….

As usual, the truth is somewhere in the muddled middle… though I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out the faulty logic associated with the Daily Kos (I know, I know… fish in a barrel…).  The idea that the media pushed a fringe blame Obama group to result in 52% of the population voting for Brown is almost too stupid to analyze.

On the other hand of course, the idea that this was a direct and total Obama failure is less certain than it appears as well.  Even the President has his thoughts about a “mood” (here):

…The president suggested the same forces that elected Brown “swept me into office” in 2008. People are frustrated “not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”…

With more to come:

…White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters at his daily briefing, “That anger is now pointed at us because we’re in charge. And rightly so.”

Gibbs said Obama would address the Massachusetts results “and what they mean” in his State of the Union address next Wednesday….

Odd that the President plans to use the State of the Union speech to discuss one senate race in MA, but I digress.

The truth is, given the numbers, the percentage of independent voters who voted for Brown, the state, the Senate seat itself, basic voter demographic information… this is surely a failure which can be place @ the President’s door.

However… this doesn’t mean that Brown’s election is necessarily a referendum to oppose health care reform or a mandate to filibuster everything.   All politics is local is still true for the most part in that anybody other than a Democrat was not guaranteed a victory based solely on Obama’s agenda.

In fact, I think the President is correct when he “suggested” the country is just angry… not only at the current administration, but also the last 8 years.  Unwittingly he might have pinpointed the main issue people are having trouble dealing with, and that’s the continuous growth of government regardless of the idiot in charge.

So just like the ’08 election which swept Obama to office on the anger of Bush – it wasn’t a mandate for Obama’s policies so much as a punishment for Republicans, though a lesser politician would have still lost to McCain… just as a crappy GOP candidate would’ve likely lost to Coakley, even with a high level of anger towards the current administration.

& last but not least, let’s not forget that since 1862, there have been 36 midterm elections held during the first or second terms of an administration. In 33 of those 36 elections, the opposition party gained seats in the House.

All in all, it’s really no consequence to most of us as to “why” this or that person was elected in a state/district in which you don’t vote.   Your vote should be based upon your preferences and your candidates & hopefully the person you want to win does (assuming that person is pro-individual freedom of course, I’ll join in on your wish).

All the rest of this crap is just a narrative… IE – the standard tit-for-tat spin-game politicians play with the media as willing participants.