Remember what I said about how I love and hate Drudge? This is a classic example:
Heh.
(Here’s the story he’s linking.)
UPDATE: As is being pointed out in comments, this bit of hyperbole isn’t even accurate on its own terms. The so-called “nuclear option” is the elimination of the filibuster (at least for certain purposes, like judicial nominations), not the relatively standard practice of evading it through use of the “reconciliation” process.
Meanwhile, apropos of nothing, after the jump I’ve given the Drudge treatment to several venerable BrendanLoy.com memes.
I’m not sure whats worse, fearmongers like Drudge, Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, et al. doing what they do because they know it makes them money but they don’t REALLY believe the extremity of their rhetoric, or that they ACTUALLY believe it. If its what they do believe I have to admit I feel a little sorry for them. It must be horrible living with such a bitter view of the world.
No, that’s totally accurate and commensurate to the destruction Obamacare will cause. If he was being hyperbolic, he would’ve used this picture:
Okay it won’t let me embed the picture.
Try this instead.
That’s not even the nuclear option. The nuclear option, as described by the Democrats during the Republican majority when they were filibustering stuff, is if the Senate votes to change their rules, eliminating the filibuster. Reconciliation is like the cluster bomb option.
Yeah, at this rate, the “nuclear option” of 2013 will be “voting” or “introducing legislation.” There’s definitely an Orwellian slide in language going on here.
When the Democrats became the majority all of a sudden “the democratic process” and “Majority Rule” were replaced with “Nuclear Option” and “Reconciliation”. It’s truly amazing to see the majority in every branch get fillibustered on judges all over the place, and this Health Care thing. The Republicans had no problem punching through every piece of legislation they wanted. The fact that Bush didn’t use one veto until his 5th or 6th year as president is a statistic that will probably never be eclipsed… at least until Jeb Bush becomes president in 2016 anyway.
So, according to Drudge and co. using a procedural method to block the democratic process is ok and part of a healthy government, but using ANOTHER procedural method to overcome the first one is wrong, wrong, WRONG, anti-American, anti-Democratic and will destory the nation as we know it?
Morons.
Say it with me, people:
No one holds, or cares about, the moral high ground when it comes to these sorts of procedural arguments. NO ONE. Everyone’s a hypocrite with respect to such arguments. EVERYONE.
The majority always likes majoritarian procedures; the minority always hates them. The minority always likes procedures that preserve minority power; the majority always hates them. When the majority and minority flip, their procedural preferences will flip, too. And then they’ll flip back again. And again. And again.
Any and all arguments trying to distract from these core facts — “But judicial nominations are different than legislation! But health care reform is just like tax cuts! But reconciliation is used all the time! But reconciliation has never been used like this! But the filibuster has never been used like this, either! You’re more obstructionist than we were! No, you were worse!” — are mere smokescreens designed to fool the rubes into believing there’s some core principle at stake. THERE IS NO CORE PRINCIPLE AT STAKE. Or, if there is, it’s completely incidental to the arguments being made; certainly, neither of the combatants in this fight give a flying you-know-what about any core principle. They are just two sides fighting to advance their respective agendas. Each side cares only cares about one thing: winning.
The End.
No one holds, or cares about, the moral high ground when it comes to these sorts of procedural arguments.
Unless you’re Brendan Loy.
Do I really need to go back and dig up old posts wherein Brendan is fuming over how someone is unfairly or cynically manipulating the process for their own ends, and damnit, this is an OUTRAGE! (usually at a conservative or a Republican, sometimes in the context of a campaign but usually in the context of normal politicking and legislative dynamics)?
It’s true that I do care about procedures more than most, considering I wrote an 80-something-page paper defending the Electoral College on purely procedural grounds (not exactly an anti-conservative/Republican position, BTW). However, in this case it’s clear from context that by “no one” I mean “none of the political combatants on either side of this debate.” Certainly there are some human beings who genuinely care… and many more who think they care, because the cynical hypocritical combatants on both sides convince them this is really a fight over some core principle, when it’s actually just a bunch of Machiavellians in Washington maneuvering for position.
In any case, I believe I’ve been consistent on the closest recent debate to this, back in 2005. Did I yell and scream about what an OUTRAGE!!! the nuclear option would be, or alternatively, what an OUTRAGE!!! the judicial filibusters were? Maybe I’m misremembering, but I think my general opinion was, meh, these particular procedural arguments don’t really matter all that much. If anything, I think I was slightly more sympathetic to the Republicans’ position then.
Fortunately, enough of us care *both* about the ends to which we work, *and* about the means towards those ends which we use … and the current incumbents in Washington will find this out, to the surprise of many of them, this November …
The Internet is gradually working its best parts, and more and more people are learning that not everything that they have been told is in fact so …
(grin) So, Brendan, with what part of “The Prince” do you identify most ?
The truth will out !