There has – justifiably – been a lot of posting here on events coming out of Occupy Boston, in particular the confrontation with the Boston Police last night.
Nonetheless, the news marches on. Here’s a brief update on what else is up:
- The Republican presidential candidates had another debate tonight that was focused exclusively on economic issues. I didn’t watch it, but the consensus of observers whom I happen to follow on Twitter was that Mitt Romney did very well and was the clear winner; Rick Perry, despite supposedly undertaking much more strenuous preparation and getting more sleep the night before, did poorly and was the clear loser; and Herman Cain held his own, neither landing any big punches nor doing anything to hurt himself. Also, apparently Cain’s 9/9/9 plan got a lot of attention, which seems likely to keep Cain’s name at the top of the news, which is certainly to his benefit. The other candidates were apparently OK but didn’t do anything to change the dynamic of the race. So for a while, at least, it looks like we’ll be hearing about a two man race – but not the one anyone expected. Perry, of course, has a lot of money and seems likely to be able to raise a lot more, so he cannot be dismissed out of hand. But if he keeps turning in these awful performances, it’s hard to see how he can get his numbers up. If social conservative/Tea Party/anyone-but-Romney GOP voters begin to coalesce around Herman Cain, we could have a really interesting race shaping up. Don’t write this guy off.
- Scott Brown, and every other Republican in the Senate, voted to filibuster President Obama’s jobs bill. The bill received a majority of votes (50-49), but of course 60 votes are needed to break a filibuster, so the bill cannot advance. Yet another example of the Senate’s anti-democratic (small “d”) procedures at work. Too bad that, while those procedures are working, millions of Americans aren’t.
- The state Senate approved an amendment to the casino bill that would not only let casinos serve free drinks, it also would remove some of the “happy hour” restrictions that apply to all establishments that serve alcohol. (The Senate had previously rejected an amendment barring casinos from serving free drinks.) Let the good times roll.
- Red Sox GM Theo Epstein may well be on his way to the Chicago Cubs.
- And, in what may turn out to be an eerie echo of MI native Mitt Romney beating TX native Rick Perry in tonight’s GOP debate, the Detroit Tigers are leading the Texas Rangers 5-1 in the top of the 8th inning. UPDATE: Detroit beats Texas 5-2. Good night all around for Michigan; bad night for Texas.
Please share widely!
AmberPaw says
Thanks for the rundown. I admit I didn’t watch the debates, either. Mitt is likely getting better at campaigning, one truism is that whatever one does more of, one does get better at.
Christopher says
Newt Gingrich suggested that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should be the ones in prison following the economic meltdown, rather than Wall Street robber barons.
johnd says
Ben Nelson (Neb) and Jon Tester (Mont) who are running for reelection in 2012 voted for NO.
Also, …
I guess they were voting for it before they would have voted against it, sounds familiar!
It will come back and the pieces which make sense will pass while the ones that don’t will stay away, as they should.
David says
but the bill still got more yeas than nays. In any sane system, that would mean that it passes.
johnd says
If the Republicans take both Houses and pass bills which you find unpalatable, wouldn’t you be happy if a Democratic Senate minority could stop bills they believed to be onerous and unfair? If you are ok with this then I would commend you for being consistent, but be careful what you wish for.
This was politicking in Obama’s side and everyone knows it, yes even the voters. Hopefully they can start to work on a real jobs bill now.
discernente says
The Founding Fathers established the filibuster as a means of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
–Senator Barack Obama, 2005
SomervilleTom says
The Democrats should, while in the majority, change the rules back to where they were for a very long time — so that filibuster requires ACTUAL SENATORS speaking (and listening).
The current practice is, like so much of modern politics, charade than reality.
discernente says
In 1975 when the present cloture rule was adopted, the Democrats held a 61/37/2 super-majority in the Senate.
SomervilleTom says
Both parties maintained higher standards of behavior, decorum, and plain civility in 1975 than they do today. This rule doesn’t work today. Period.
discernente says
Democrats changed the rule in pure blood lust in the aftermath of Watergate to shut out a Republican Senate minority (prior to 1975 cloture to end a filibuster required a 2/3 vote). Neither party has had what I’d consider any standards of ethical behavior, decorum or civility among themselves (or toward their constituents) over the last 45 years or so.
That aside, I’d love to have the Senate return to filibusters and vigorous transparent debate over the current circus it’s become.
SomervilleTom says
I followed politics fairly closely then, and I grew up in Washington DC. I don’t remember anything remotely comparable to the insanely suicidal posturing of today’s GOP.
The rule change I’m proposing is not the cloture rule, by the way. Instead, I mean the rule, created at the same time in 1975, that says that a filibuster exists when 41 senators say they will filibuster.
I think that a filibuster should require actual senators speaking to the actual chamber, and where they are actually identifiable as filibustering.
Christopher says
Yes, JohnD, I for one would feel exactly the same way I do now regardless of partisan makeup of the Senate. That is, if there is going to be a filibuster it should be a real filibuster with actual germane debate, no threats of filibusters or holds.
The quote from then-Sen. Obama is inaccurate to my understanding; the founding fathers did not establish the filibuster, but it evolved later via Senate rules.
johnd says
But get ready because there is a definite possibility of the Republicans taking the Senate, fortifying the House AND maybe President Romney getting sworn in. What would happen to the initiatives which have been started during the last 3 years (like ObamaCare)? As the President said, the filibuster protects the minority and that is exactly what could happen.
I’m not looking forward to Republicans controlling all three cabals.