Democrats Suddenly Big Fans Of The Filibuster

By William Teach November 6, 2014 – 1:12 pm

Now that they realize that they are going to be the minority party in the Senate,  they’re realizing that the filibuster thing is super awesome and a necessary part of Democracy. Here’s one of the least caustic articles,  which actually has a few good thoughts

(Mother Jones) Danny Vinik says that with Democrats soon to be the minority party in the Senate, Harry Reid will employ the filibuster just as much as Mitch McConnell ever did:

Reid has a history of supporting the filibuster when in the minority and criticizing it when in the majority. There’s no reason to expect that to change with McConnell as majority leader.

And that’s a good thing. If Republicans are going to reap the political benefits of indiscriminate filibustering, then Democrats should do so as well. The advantage of filibustering is that it allows a party to block progress without taking all of the blame for it, for the simple reason that most of the public—and, surprisingly, most of the media—don’t realize that filibusters are basically thwarting majority rule. Presidential vetoes, on the other hand, are easy for the public and media to understand and easy to appropriate blame. If Democrats relinquished the tool now, they’d give up a chance to make the same sort of gains. It’d be the equivalent of unilateral disarmament.

Agreed. In fact, it never even occurred to me that Democrats might use the filibuster any less than Republicans have over the past six years. The GOP has taught a master class in the virtues of obstruction, and there’s no reason to think that Democrats haven’t learned the lesson well. The only question is whether Reid will be able to hold his caucus together as well as McConnell held together his.

That excerpt in the excerpt is from The New Republic, which really wants Dems to employ the filibuster as much as they can in order to block any substantive GOP legislation. Democrats were Very Concerned prior to the election that Republicans would keep the existing filibuster rules put in place by the Dems under Reed,  and even go full nuclear option. Republicans/conservatives are also pushing Mitch McConnell to keep the Reid rules,  and even expand them.

It’s nice to see them coming back to bite Dems in the posterior.

Actually, I take that back. That’s not the only question. Here’s the one I’m really curious about: will the media treat Democratic filibusters the same way they treated Republican filibusters? To put this more bluntly, will they treat Dem filibusters as routine yawners barely worth mentioning? Or, alternatively, will they treat them not as expressions of sincere dissent against an agenda they loathe, but as nakedly cynical ploys employed by vengeful and bitter Democrats for no purpose other than exacting retribution against Mitch McConnell? Just asking.

Good questions, and not ones I’d expect from Mother Jones. TNR article specifically wants Dems to use the filibuster tongue up the works, rather than for any real objections to legislation.

Read: Democrats Suddenly Big Fans Of The Filibuster »

Posted in Democrats, Politics | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 6, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful progressive city with wind turbines stopping climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on the sweet hangover of victory.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

National Geographic Warmists Really Upset Over Midterms

By William Teach November 6, 2014 – 10:22 am

Why? Because the results make it less likely that any legislation will be passed to help stop Hotcoldwetdry

(National Geographic) In the green hills and gray hollows of Kentucky’s well-mined mountains, the economy of extracting coal from the fuel-rich ground isn’t what it once was.

Yet Mitch McConnell, a longtime senator poised to become majority leader of the U.S. Senate in a Congress that will be fully controlled by his Republican Party come January, has found political fortune in those hills. He successfully campaigned for reelection there with warnings about a “war on coal” he accuses Democratic President Barack Obama of waging. This helps explain what the United States won’t be doing about global warming in the near future. (Read more about how the midterm election results may intensify the battle over clean energy.)

An alignment of the newly empowered McConnell and fellow Republican leaders—who either openly doubt scientists’ findings that human industry has heated the planet, or contend that curbing carbon emissions into the Earth’s atmosphere isn’t worth the potential cost of lost jobs—is likely to create the most hostile political environment ever for addressing climate change in Washington.

Let’s hope so. Interestingly, Democrats failed to pass any meaningful “climate change” legislation when they had complete control of Congress during Obama’s first two years.

At the end of the day, as has been noted many times, on the list of issues that concern Americans climate change comes in last or next to last. If it even makes the list.

I would like to see the GOP take up the issue of investing more in research and development into alternatives, to make them better. The method from Dems was to just give away money, some of which was supposed to be paid back, but rarely was, to companies that slapped up wind turbines and solar farms. A good chunk of those failed, and provided few jobs. The return on investment was negligible. The power is expensive, and power output is low compared to nuclear, coal, gas, and natural gas. We really need the next generation wind and solar. Also, a better battery for storage.

Read: National Geographic Warmists Really Upset Over Midterms »

Posted in Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: “Climate Change” A Big Loser In Midterms

By William Teach November 6, 2014 – 7:11 am

Yes, “climate change” was a big loser for the midterms. Perhaps not quite a big a loser as Mr. Obama’s policies, but, pretty big. Here’s the Voxspation from hyper-Warmist Brad Plummer

One big loser in this election? Climate policy.

In the lead-up to the 2014 midterms, a lot of green groups were hoping that this might finally be the election in which climate change became a defining issue.

You had billionaire Tom Steyer spending $57 million trying to convince voters to care about global warming. You had the League of Conservation Voters pouring in another $25 million, more than in the previous two elections combined. All the while, it at least seemed possible that recent natural disasters — from Hurricane Sandy two years ago to the ongoing drought in the West — might push climate issues to the fore.

Ultimately, none of it mattered much. The outlook for climate policy looks just as dismal after these midterms as it did before — at least in Washington, DC.

That was published Tuesday at 10:56pm, before all the results were in, and probably written earlier. And, yeah, none of it mattered. Despite all the money, most didn’t care in the least about Hotcoldwetdry, just as the opinion polls show

Congratulations, Voters. You Just Made This Climate Denier the Most Powerful Senator on the Environment.

On handing Republicans control of the Senate on Tuesday, Americans effectively voted for the party’s hostile plans against President Barack Obama’s environmental legacy. Their votes also put the Senate’s environment and climate policy into the hands of the worst science-denier in national politics: Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who is almost certainly the next chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Hooray!!!!!! That’s some excellent news

(Politico) For Tom Steyer and other environmentalists, $85 million wasn’t enough to help Democrats keep the Senate blue or win more than a single governor’s mansion in Tuesday’s toughest races.

The billionaire’s super PAC and other green groups saw the vast majority of their favored candidates in the battleground states go down to defeat, despite spending an unprecedented amount of money to help climate-friendly Democrats in the midterm elections.

Just two of the six vulnerable Democratic Senate candidates backed by various green groups — New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Michigan Rep. Gary Peters — prevailed Tuesday, while Colorado Sen. Mark Udall, North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan and Iowa hopeful Bruce Braley lost. (The fate of Alaska Sen. Mark Begich was still undecided.)

As I and others have noted time and again, when it comes to real world issues that people care about, “climate change” tends to come in last or second to last.

And, hey, I thought Democrats hated all that outside money by uber-rich people?

Read: Bummer: “Climate Change” A Big Loser In Midterms »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Super Thrilled With Obama’s Weird Election Loss Press Conference

By William Teach November 6, 2014 – 7:05 am

While most pundits, news outlets, reporters, etc, even liberal ones, were wondering what in the heck is wrong with Mr. Obama, what alternative world he lives in, how detached he is, regarding his press conference Wednesday on getting shellacked, the NY Times editorial board loved it

Mr. Obama’s Offer to Republicans

President Obama refused on Wednesday to submit to the Republican narrative that his presidency effectively ended with the midterm elections.

He said he will not agree to the repeal of health care reform, as many Republicans demand. He will not sit around doing nothing while they look for the courage to enact immigration reform. He will continue to demand a higher minimum wage and new spending on public works, and expansion of early education programs.

“Obviously, Republicans had a good night,” he said, a quiet admission that his party got drubbed, losing control of the Senate, as well as at least 14 House seats. But he said he hopes to meet regularly with Republican leaders and work on areas where there is mutual agreement.

Strange that the Times doesn’t mention that Obama barely meets with his own Party members in Congress, and hasn’t bothered meeting with either them or Republicans regularly over the past 6 years. Why would he change now?

“What’s most important to the American people right now, the resounding message not just of this election, but basically the last several is: Get stuff done,” he said. “Don’t worry about the next election. Don’t worry about party affiliation. Do worry about our concerns.”

Get. Stuff. Done. That is so incredibly deep. A great plan, eh? Of course, he hasn’t really bothered with this the last 6 years, either.

Republicans ran on no message except that Mr. Obama was always wrong, and voters on Tuesday said they were angry with the country’s direction and political gridlock, taking their fury out on the president’s party because he is in charge. (As he noted, two-thirds of eligible voters didn’t even show up.)

I don’t remember the Times saying the same thing in 2006, when that’s exactly what Democrats did. I’m sure if we dug up an editorial from them for the 2006 midterms, we’d probably see them being thrilled and holding Bush responsible. As far as the two-thirds thing, that was a nice slap at Americans, and, furthermore, roughly three-fourths of US citizens did not vote for Obama in 2012. So, I guess he has no mandate, right?

Under those circumstances, Mr. Obama was justified in sticking with what he called “the principles that we’re fighting for,” which got him elected twice: creating job opportunity by expanding the economy, the top issue on the minds of most voters. There is no need to backtrack on goals like a higher minimum wage or expanded health insurance when most voters say they want those things.

Good grief. All the exit polls showed that people were sick of Obama and sick of his policies. He said his policies were on the ballot, and his policies lost. He and the NY Times want to continue those policies.

Mr. Obama said he would never agree to end the mandate, which would gut the health law, and there is no reason he should. Voters said they wanted the two parties to stop bickering and work harder, not erase the progress made in the last six years.

Interesting. The Times puts the burden on the GOP, even though the Democrat run Senate has been devoid of serious legislation for years. There’s been no actual budget during Obama’s term. Harry Reid avoids tough votes in order to protect Obama (though, as minority leader starting in 2015, I bet Reid is less inclined to do anything for Obama anymore). The House has sent dozens of economic bills to the Senate, all of which are tabled in committee. The NY Times is cheerleading for Obama to ignore the results of the midterms, and for Obama to keep on with his failed agenda.

Let’s flip over to Dana Milbank

“I hear you,” President Obama said to the voters who gave Democrats an electoral drubbing in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

But their message went in one presidential ear and out the other. (snip)

It’s true that voters are disgusted with both parties, but they were particularly unhappy with Obama. In exit polls, 33 percent said their votes were to show disapproval of him (19 percent said they were showing support). In The Post, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid’s chief of staffall but blamed Obama for the loss.

But Obama wasn’t about to acknowledge fault, or the need for change. He allowed that, as president, he has “a unique responsibility to try and make this town work.” But his solution was to defer responsibility: “I look forward to Republicans putting forward their governing agenda.”

No one should be surprised by Obama deferring responsibility: he’s done it his entire time in politics, and particularly when the buck is supposed to stop at his desk. It’s what he does best.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Super Thrilled With Obama’s Weird Election Loss Press Conference »

Posted in Barry Obama | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: New GOP Senate Gearing Up To Cause Climate Mayhem

By William Teach November 5, 2014 – 3:50 pm

Grist’s Ben Adler is Very Concerned

The new GOP Senate is already gearing up to cause climate mayhem

…

But their biggest win by far was taking control of the U.S. Senate. As of this writing, Republicans had already secured 52 Senate seats, thanks to knocking off Democratic incumbents or replacing retiring Democrats in Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Another GOP pick up is probable in Alaska, and Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy is likely to win the runoff in Louisiana against Sen. Mary Landrieu in December.

This is not good news for the climate. The party that controls the majority and the committee chairmanships controls the agenda. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will now be the majority leader. McConnell deflects questions about whether he accepts climate science by saying he isn’t a scientist and citing climate-denying conservative pundit George Will. But he is clear about where he stands on fossil fuels, especially coal: He loves them. Attacking President Obama for not sharing his passion for burning carbon was central to McConnell’s reelection campaign this year. If you thought Landrieu, chair of the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee, was too pro–fossil fuel, just wait until Republican Lisa Murkowski of Alaska takes the gavel. Leading climate denier James Inhofe of Oklahoma will be taking over the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and fellow denier Ted Cruz (R-Texas) will be chairing the Committee on Science and Technology.

The Republicans have two top energy-related demands: stop EPA from regulating CO2 and approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

So, complete and total doom. How dare the GOP work to make sure citizens have access to inexpensive energy!

And so you can expect to see a lot of little bits of bad news for the climate and the broader environment in the budget negotiation process. EPA funding will be cut, presumably by somewhere between the roughly stable funding Obama will likely request and the drastic cuts the House GOP will pass. Programs that especially irk Republicans, like those that promote renewable energy and anything pertaining to smart growth, will fare especially poorly. There will also be spending cuts in other departments with environmental implications, like mass transit and transit-oriented affordable-housing development.

If the GOP acts in a smart manner, they will not necessarily cut a lot, but force proper spending. Get the EPA back to dealing with their core mission, rather than going off the rails on Hotcoldwetdry and their overbearing tyranny methods. The EPA has a place and a role. For renewables, use money for research and development, to make sure it is done right with methods that can actually succeed, rather than just throwing money at companies that either go under or provide little return on investment, mostly meaning little power that is expensive. Mass transit should be left to the states and cities. Lite rail has turned out to be a pure boondoggle and outhouse of spending.

Ben does make a good point

In fairness to the GOP, elections have consequences and Obama should have to compromise with them. That Republicans lack any actual popular majority — they won because of the rural bias of the Senate and gerrymandering of House districts — is irrelevant. When Republicans claim they have a popular mandate, they are lying, and should be called out for it. But when they say, “We won and we’re going to use our power to enact our agenda,” it’s all in the game.

Elections do have consequences. Republicans would be well within their rights to tell Obama “we won. Deal with it.”

Read: Bummer: New GOP Senate Gearing Up To Cause Climate Mayhem »

Posted in Environment, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 5, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is the need for more firefighters as the GOP majority ignores climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post on Greg Abbott crushing Abortion Barbie.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Harry Reid Tells Us What The GOP Wave Is Really About

By William Teach November 5, 2014 – 9:58 am

I was hunting around for the Alison Grimes concession speech that has Democrats roasting her, and ran across this, possibly one of the dumbest comments made about the Wave

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid congratulated McConnell on the Republican victory in a statement Tuesday night.

“The message from voters is clear: they want us to work together,” Reid, D-Nev., said. “I look forward to working with Senator McConnell to get things done for the middle class.”

Really? That’s the message? I would think the message is that citizens are tired of the Reid-Obama agenda, and tired of Reid’s heavy hand ignoring all the legislation sent over from the House, and how Reid is utterly partisan and refuses to cross the aisle.

https://twitter.com/belle_river/status/529985567925469184

Tweet via Twitchy.

Read: Harry Reid Tells Us What The GOP Wave Is Really About »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

HuffPo Blames Maine Freak Snowstorm On Climate Change

By William Teach November 5, 2014 – 9:06 am

Of course they did

A freak early-season snowstorm has paralyzed large parts of Maine, leaving thousands without power and putting a damper on today’s election.

Some parts of the state recorded up to 21 inches of snow. CentralMaine.com reportst hat up to 65,000 residents were still without power as of Monday, and some towns had to change their polling locations because of the outage. (snip)

Climate deniers like to pounce on snowstorms as evidence that climate change isn’t happening. But scientists have found that increased precipitation, including heavy snowstorms, may actually be driven by climate change. A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, which increases the chances of a major precipitation event like a snowstorm.

They were really hoping this fossil fueled freak snow storm would defeat incumbent GOP gov Paul Le Page. Nope. He won.

Read: HuffPo Blames Maine Freak Snowstorm On Climate Change »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | Comments Off on HuffPo Blames Maine Freak Snowstorm On Climate Change | Trackback URL

NY Times Editorial Board Already In Sour Grapes Mode

By William Teach November 5, 2014 – 8:22 am

Yes they are

Negativity Wins the Senate

Republicans would like the country to believe that they took control of the Senate on Tuesday by advocating a strong, appealing agenda of job creation, tax reform and spending cuts. But, in reality, they did nothing of the sort.

Even the voters who supported Republican candidates would have a hard time explaining what their choices are going to do. That’s because virtually every Republican candidate campaigned on only one thing: what they called the failure of President Obama. In speech after speech, ad after ad, they relentlessly linked their Democratic opponent to the president and vowed that they would put an end to everything they say the public hates about his administration. On Tuesday morning, the Republican National Committee released a series of get-out-the-vote images showing Mr. Obama and Democratic Senate candidates next to this message: “If you’re not a voter, you can’t stop Obama.”

I’m sure that is somehow raaaaacist.

The most important promises that winning Republicans made were negative in nature. They will repeal health care reform. They will roll back new regulations on banks and Wall Street. They will stop the Obama administration’s plans to curb coal emissions and reform immigration and invest in education.

Most of us do not see that as a negative. We see the initial policies as negatives.

Virtually all Democratic candidates distanced themselves from Mr. Obama and refused to make the case that there has been substantial progress on jobs and economic growth under this administration.

Oh, so they were negative on Obama, too. Good to know.

But Republicans also had little to say about reviving the economy, and their idea of creating jobs seems to be limited to building the Keystone XL oil pipeline, cutting taxes further and crying “repeal Obamacare” at every opportunity.

Well, except for noting the dozens of economic bills currently stuck in the Democrat controlled Senate, where Harry Reid refuses to all votes on those bills.

In theory, full control of Congress might give Republicans an incentive to reach compromise with Mr. Obama because they will need to show that they can govern rather than obstruct. They might, for example, be able to find agreement on a free-trade agreement with Pacific nations.

You’ll hear a lot about how Republicans need to compromise with Dems and Obama, despite D and O rarely ever doing the same.

But their caucuses in the Senate and the House will be more conservative than before, and many winning candidates will feel obliged to live up to their promises of obstruction. Mr. McConnell has already committed himself to opposing a minimum-wage increase, fighting regulations on carbon emissions and repealing the health law.

Let’s hope they do go with a fiscal Conservative agenda.

“Just because we have a two-party system doesn’t mean we have to be in perpetual conflict,” Mr. McConnell said in his victory speech. As the new Senate leader, he must now prove those are not empty words.

Remember when the NY Times was calling for Dems to work with Bush and Republicans when they handily won in November, 2006? I remember Paul Krugman whining about how the 2006 midterms were All About Bush

President Bush isn’t on the ballot tomorrow. But this election is, nonetheless, all about him. The question is whether voters will pry his fingers loose from at least some of the levers of power, thereby limiting the damage he can inflict in his two remaining years in office.

That was the day before the 2006 midterms.

The Washington Post editorial board is also amusing

REPUBLICANS COLLECTED a significant victory in Tuesday’s midterm elections, gaining control of the Senate to go with their control of the House. With that win comes an increased level of responsibility for the nation’s fortunes. They can no longer behave like a petty opposition party. If the GOP wants to prove before 2016 that it is better at governing than the Democrats, this is its chance to address a backlog of problems — to seek results, rather than continue to blame others for failure.

Remember all those editorials about Obama Blamestorming away his failures?

Republicans, then, should treat the next two years as an opportunity to legislate in good faith, not to push serious work beyond the next election in the fantasy that the country has permanently turned in a more conservative direction. For his part, Mr. Obama should not embark on his final two years with an assumption of Republican intransigence that would be self-fulfilling.

So, Republicans should “compromise”, and really, good luck with that part about Obama. He lives for division.

But, after all is said, and the sour grapes are ground away, the Democratic Underground was probably the most sour of all.

Read: NY Times Editorial Board Already In Sour Grapes Mode »

Posted in Elections, Wonky Media | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove