Senate dispatch
Dana Milbank notes the quiet passage of an important milestone.
For anniversaries, the 50th is golden. But as Republicans returned to town on Monday to mark their 50th filibuster of this 111th Congress, there were no reminiscences about filibusters past, no swapping of old snapshots of favorite obstruction memories.
In fact, only one Republican, the indefatigable Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, even bothered to go to the Senate floor to speak in favor of the filibuster -- this one an attempt to block unemployment benefits for millions of jobless Americans. The "debate" amounted to an extended quorum call -- a procedure under which the Senate's presiding officer sits in a chair and waits for somebody to show up and talk.
For the second time in as many months, Republicans had tried to block the unemployment benefits. Also for the second time, they failed. Four of their number, including "tea party" favorite Scott Brown of Massachusetts, sided with the Democrats. "Families in Massachusetts and across the nation are hurting," Brown said in a statement rebuking his colleagues after the vote. He said he preferred to "continue the debate rather than obstruct it."
By
Ezra Klein
|
April 14, 2010; 10:01 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: A fast recovery? Or a slow one?
Next: Sen. Mark Warner: Mitch McConnell 'either doesn't understand or chooses not to understand'
Posted by: jercary | April 14, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse
Scott Brown has no long term future as a Republican senator in Massachusetts. And he has no long term future as a national Republican figure.
His only way forward is to gradually edge to the left, and switch to the Democratic party. I would guess that he would try to time it for about eighteen months before he is up for reelection. Leave it too late, and it will look like opportunism. Do it too soon, and there will be time to find a candidate to challenge him from the left.
Posted by: Unwisdom | April 14, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse
It certainly seems that Scott Brown understands that he is the junior Senator from a state far more liberal than the GOP.
Posted by: RalfW | April 14, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse
Not having mastered the arcane rules of the Senate, out of curiosity, what would happen if Democrats or the President of the Senate demanded (if they even can) that the Republicans actually perform a filibuster rather than just indicate the intention? Or is the current system a polite way for every senator to go about his business without having to actually do the business of the Senate?
Posted by: tomcammarata | April 14, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
This is just gettign ridiculous. Take the pill and deal with the pain and we all get over this quickly. This slow death crap and giving away money is just making it worse!