Did Harry Reid screw the Democrats?

We usually comment on local Tampa Bay related issues and adventures here at the Eye, but two recent editorials from the Times and Tribune on the U.S. Senates "nuclear option" were just too much not to comment on.

The Tribune warns of more partisanship yet to come:

Democrats — and the American people — will regret their vote to end the Senate filibuster rule for confirming judges and most other presidential nominees.

The arrogant move will exacerbate the bitter partisanship that makes Congress seem more a bickering playpen. It will muffle the voice of the minority.

Of course, the Times thinks it's all the Republicans fault.

By abusing the filibuster to an unprecedented degree, Senate Republicans brought about the reasonable changes they are now fuming over.

Blah blah blah.

One thing for sure, over the years. the nuclear option debate has illustrated the sheer hypocrisy in both parties.  Whom ever has the majority, is against the filibuster, and the minority, for the filibuster.  Flip the party in power, they flip their position.  No principles on this issue.  It's about power.  It's pure hypocrisy.

Harry Reid giving the middle finger to the minority Republicans.
But did he really screw the Democrats?

Who was one of the originators for using the filibuster to block administration appointments?  None other than the Times hero of the day, Harry Reid.  He engineered using it in 2003 - 2005 when Democrats were the minority.

The Times blathers on about how it's the Republican's fault, that we have important business of governing to do, we need these liberal judge appointments, etc.  They conclude if the Republicans continue to obstruct, it's only to block all the goodness from our government. Of course, only the Democrats have important governing to do, and Democrats and only Democrats want to do what's best for the country.  Yet the Times totally ignores history of both parties flipping and flopping on the nuclear option.

Beyond their sheer partisanship and lack of history, the Times demonstrates the liberal/progressives are completely unaware of the consequences and implications of any of their actions.  Progressives never are.  If they are ever aware, they never discuss them.

The Tribune has a different point of view, and more balanced, at least highlighting some of the pure power play and partisanship this is about... and will only worsen.  They highlighted President Obama's statement from the dark years of 2005:

“ ... if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That does not serve anybody’s best interest, and it certainly is not what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind.”

Yet, somehow the Times and Tribute both miss most of the relevant points.

The filibuster is about enabling a more lengthy debate, more analysis of proposed laws, by providing the minority a tool to force extra debate. It limits the majority rules.

But now, the majority changed the rules.  In this case, it's a rather limited removal of the filibuster for federal judiciary (not Supreme Court) and appointments.  It passed on a mostly party line vote. Democrats for it, all Republicans against it, with 3 Democrats also voting against.

Majority rules.

The majority relaxed one rule with a majority vote.

Majority rules.

The majority can change any rule with a majority vote.

Majority rules.

The majority can vote to get rid of the filibuster.

Majority rules.

The next majority may be Republican.

Majority rules.

The next Democrat minority will be unable  to use the filibuster to stymie legislation they dislike.

Majority rules.

The next Republican majority may repeal Obamacare with 51 votes.

Majority rules.

The next Democrat minority will be unable to continue to protect the social-welfare-regulatory state they've built up and promoted over the decades when they were the majority.

Majority rules.

The next Republican majority can start to pull back on the social-welfare-regulatory state, which has in the past been stymied by Democrats when in the minority via use of the filibuster.

Majority rules.

This will enable Republicans to stop and hopefully retard the progress of ever creeping social-welfare-regulatory state.  For each Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, etc. get ready for a repeal, or market-based reforms.

Majority rules.

The next Democrat minority won't be able to do a damn thing about it.

Majority rules.

Until the Democrats scream for the traditional filibuster to return.

That's what they voted for.

Actions have consequences.