Many just reading this wonder, if our nation is moving more centrist/liberal or at least against far conservatism, how come so many of the dead enders get elected to start with? Of course, much of that is due to our badly designed election system - parties in power draw district boundaries enclosing groups of fervent voters. Gerrymandering has been around of course, but now partisans can use clever SW that finds the most efficient way to put the most conservative or black etc. voters together. It is also more endemic.

It is tempting now for Democrats to maintain this system given the apparent advantage to them, but I strongly recommend just the opposite: require, even if it takes a Constitutional Amendment, a non-partisan system that forces contiguous, compact districts. That would quickly force out many of the most partisan. It remains to be seen how to square that with other rules, I don't really want to just get rid of, seeking to ensure that minorities have some weight in deciding what boundaries to draw. But even then, it has to be taken away from legislatures.

You'll see obstructionism on a level not seen since the days of Parnell, O'Donnell and Biggar, I predict.

Why would a party that, when it is in power, reverts to monarchist type, suddenly discover the virtues of majoritarianism now that it's out of power?

And then there's the whole big-C Conservatism thing.

"Teach me, o Buckley, Conservatism while standing on one foot."
"Stand athwart history, and yell 'Stop!'. The rest is commentary."

They have the right to filibuster. But let's make a small change -- make them actually filibuster. Make then come to the floor and hold it, without sitting down, old style.

Right now, the whole legislative process folds when there is a threat of a filibuster. I suspect that this technique of obstructionism would be a much less popular tool if they had to go and actually do it in front of the Senate and the country, for all to witness.

When you step on a dinosaur's tail it take quite some time before the message reaches the head.

"But there are political risks if the GOP is seen as obstructionist at a time when voters are clamoring for economic relief and change."

So sayeth the Times, and that should in theory be correct. But the level of risk really depends on how effectively the Senate Dems and the DNC can (a) fend of Republican procedural games and (b) even more important how ewll can the Dems deliver a message to the masses about the obstructionism, who is at fault, and what the consequences are.

Frankly, based on recent history it is hard to blame the Republican caucus for seriously discounting the political downside to obstructionism. Reid et al have to date shown no ability to make the R's pay any price (the 2006 and 2008 election results were in spite of, not thanks to, Reid) and have shown no ability to outmaneuver the Senate R's.

Perhaps a new year, a strong D President, and bigger Senate majority will bring about a change, but I need to see proof before I believe.

Churchyard is right. Let them obstruct. Force them to obstruct publically and obviously. That will drive the R's further into minority status, get a few more Dems inot Congress, make even the iiot pundits see the Republicans for what they are. Our biggest enmemy right now isn't obstructing Republicans; it's spinelessness on the part of Senate Democrats.

I need to see proof before I believe. zeitgeist

Me too. But I'm guessing Obama knows the power of a speech. His ability to deliver one was one of his strongest assets, and he won't be shy about using it.

Forget 60. Because Reid sucks so bad, getting to 50 is going to be the main problem.

Eliminating gerrymandering won't affect the Senate in the slightest. And even with it, the House isn't a problem as the people have given the Democrats a significant majority.

As Churchyard said, make the Senate Repubs fillibuster. Make them stand up in the Senate blabbing about the miracle of the free market while the economy falls down around their ears.

Frankly, I consider the GOP talk about filibustering and obstruction to be a lot of hot air this time around, for three reasons:

1. It's easy to maintain filibuster when you have 49 seats in an almost evenly divided Senate. When you have barely 40 seats, it gets pretty difficult.

2. Between the few remaining GOP moderates like Snowe and Collins and the sizable number of 2010 GOP Senators petrefied of losing their seats, I don't think it'll take much for GOP unity to crack.

3. The presence of a popular President of the opposing party against use, especially one with Obama's rhetorical skills. That's the key thing especially, because with Obama entering office with such high support and goodwill, he can easily make the case against the Republicans if they try to stand in his way. Plus, does the GOP really want a televised contrast between Obama and Mitch McConnell? (Sorry, Mitch, but it looks like you were beaten with an ugly stick night and day for a week.)

When you have barely 40 seats, it gets pretty difficult.

The Republicans only "needed" 31 to block the auto bailout. And there were only 3 Dems who joined them.

Let us not exaggerate, PeakVT...Reid can get 50 standing on his head -- or more accurately, even after losing Lincoln, Landrieu, both Nelsons, and a Baucus or two...and he's lost Ken Nighthorse Salazar to boot.

But the level of risk really depends on how effectively the Senate Dems and the DNC can (a) fend of Republican procedural games and (b) even more important how ewll can the Dems deliver a message to the masses about the obstructionism, who is at fault, and what the consequences are.

But the level of risk really depends on how effectively the Senate Dems and the DNC can (a) fend of Republican procedural games and (b) even more important how ewll can the Dems deliver a message to the masses about the obstructionism, who is at fault, and what the consequences are.

I thought that was worth reading a couple more times.

shorty is right, and part of making people understand who is responsible for what, is Churchyard's point - make them actually start reading the phone book

Enough threats of filibusters - let's see some.

It is absolutely correct that the Republicans lost because they were not conservative enough. The last somewhat Republican candidate was Reagan. Neither of the Bush's, nor Dole nor McCain are conservatives. The only saving grace to McCain's campaign was his selection of Sarah Palin.BTW - conservatsm and the Republican Party are obviously not synonymous.

The Democraps remain an ideology driven party - far left neo-socialism is their mantra but no one tells them they are too ideological.

shorty is right

craigie, that was zeitgeist's post. I was just double-underlining it in pink magic marker.

awww, thanks. you make me blush.

although you could have corrected my awful typing before repeating it with double pink underlining :)

Don't discount the possibility that many GOPers talking about how the party needs to be more conservative know very well that's not the case, but also know they have to say that to avoid incitating a holy war with the Republican base.

Mike

Republican "moderates" -- a group small enough to "squeeze into a Volkswagen Beetle"

Damn, it's the old 'elephant joke':

Q. How many elephants can you fit into a Volkswagen?

A. Six - three in the front, and three in the back.

Of course, even by the loosest of standards, you'd have a hard time coming up with enough moderate Senate elephants to fill the Volkswagen.

They will use simple correlation to "prove" that only being very conservative works. They will simply show that the moderate republicans lost, and the conservative ones still have their seats. That is all that is needed to "prove" something to the choir, that it already wants to believe. The fact that the moderate republicans were moderate because they were in purple states will be conveniently lost.

I'm not so sure you want them reading the phone book. If you let them filibuster you're ceding them control of the debate, which they usually do a good job controlling anyway.

I'd much rather see this relegated to a procedural, political, mechanical, unsympathetic obstructionism than anything that reminds people of Mr. Smith goes to washington.

The problem was that Harry Reid is just not willing to throw the Republicans under the bus. At least, he hasn't been. The President of the United States has enormous ability to dictate the debate to the press. More so than 1 of 100 Senators or 1 of 435 Representatives.

The republicans are going to get smoked if they think they can throw weight around with a popular president and a national crisis.

Let me go out on a limb and say - the Republicans are going to get that smoking, and Dems will add to their majorities in 2010

I nominate fred t for RNC chair -- it seems he has discovered the single fastest way for the Democrats to achieve a true filibuster-proof Senate caucus.

Specter is up for re-election in 2010, and will face a strong far-right primary challenge. So he's going to need to swerve right before trying to remind PA voters what a moderate he is. Look for him to get ugly at the Holder hearings.

On the other hand, McCain might be happy to give a big FU to the Republican leadership and go all mavericky on their butts, and tell them to shove their filibusters.

We'll see. McCain and Collins and Snowe hold the cards right now.

Actually mark r it would be helpful in actual policy movement to force literal rather than virtual filibuster. The public is hard to show clearly whether the Repubs are being awful since there is an active constituency for whatever filibuster is tried - or they wouldn't try it. And the gerrymandered districts I mentioned at top make it hard to kick them out due to overall public opinion.

I nominate fred t for RNC chair

I'm all for this. fred, get out there and school those recalcitrant partymates of yours. Don't listen to their mewling about winning elections. Tell 'em how it's gonna be.

Heh, if only I could read!

Most of the party's leaders insist, reality notwithstanding, that Republicans lost because they "abandoned their conservative principles." They weren't, in other words, rigidly ideological enough, and didn't do enough to motivate and satisfy the demands of the party's far-right base.

Assuming Obama's first term is successful, I for one look forward to 2012, when the GOP nominates a rigidly ideological conservative who motivates and satisfies the demands of the party's far-right base.

You can't win an election with only 25 percent of the vote.

Such is the Republican paradox. You can't win the primary without pandering to the hard right, yet you can't then win the election without courting the moderates.

And the media can't get away with ignoring the president if he gets involved (easier to ignore senate dems) ...

Time to make them Filibuster.

"You can't win an election with only 25 percent of the vote."

Actually, I'm pretty sure you *could* win both the Electoral College and 51 Senate seats with about
25% of the vote, if you manage to win all the (over-represented) small-population states by 50.1:49.9, and lose all the big states 0:100.

It's probably not good strategy to aim for that though.

As for the filibuster talk, it's just hooey: there's a huge difference between holding together 41 senators out of a caucus of 49, and holding together 41 senators out of 41. There are very
few issues where all of Snowe, Collins, Specter,
Hagel, and Lugar will be prepared to pick a fight with President Obama. Perhaps none at all.

Heh, if only I could read!

Don't be greedy. How many talents should one man have?!

Such is the Republican paradox. You can't win the primary without pandering to the hard right, yet you can't then win the election without courting the moderates.

Whereas those of us holding views way left of the Dems we elect are well used to not getting our way. Which is, I guess, why we now hold both houses and the White House.

Don't be greedy. How many talents should one man have?!

Thanks! The check is in the mail!

Just remember to sign this one, okay?

"Actually mark r it would be helpful in actual policy movement to force literal rather than virtual filibuster. The public is hard to show clearly whether the Repubs are being awful since there is an active constituency for whatever filibuster is tried - or they wouldn't try it. And the gerrymandered districts I mentioned at top make it hard to kick them out due to overall public opinion."

As tomeck pointed out above, the filibuster problem is in the Senate, and there's no gerrymandering of the Senate; all senators are elected state-wide. Granted, the vast disparity in the populations of states makes the Senate undemocratic, but it was set up that way intentionally, and the equal representation of each state in the Senate is the one provision in the Constitution that's not subject to amendment.

Anyone know why Collins and Snowe are staying in the Republican't Party anyway?

I don't see a real downside to making RepubCo read the phone book. I'm sure they don't want to do it and I think their boldness in throwing the filibuster around comes from knowing that Harry isn't going to do squat except throw up his hands before tossing in the towel. Those pesky Repukes just won't cooperate darn them.

RepubCo gets away with bluffing about 98% more than they deserve. They bluster and threaten but almost never are they actually pushed to produce.

Make them stand before the world and demonstrate their allegiance to "conservative principles". Make folks shake their heads and wonder what the hell those idiots are doing as they yak while America burns. Make them take a stand and explain their "reasoning", (barf).

Reid has a toolbox at his disposal but all he ever uses is duct tape. It would be great if someone with knowledge, a strategic perspective and a desire to win could be in the Majority Leader's chair. There's no one like that there now.

I wonder what historians (or anybody else who is interested) 100 years from now might make of the Republicans of the last 30 years.

What DO the Republicans want? Is it ONLY to oppose Democrats? Is it ONLY to have power? Is there ANYTHING they can say to the public that they stand for which ISN't an out and out lie?

Small government? not so much

Lower taxes? only for the uber-rich

Fiscal discipline? only if by discipline you mean the self control to spend every dollar ever printed or ever will be printed

Compassion? hardly

There is nothing that says one can't be an honest conservative. Of course, that would have meant fighting your own President when he cut taxes while simultaneously raising expenditures. That would have meant opposing your own President when he raped the Constitution. And politicized the Department of Justice. That would mean ostracizing members of your party found to be guilty of crimes.
The simple fact is: the majority of the Republican Party consists of dishonest conservatives. And the voters found them out.

I don't give much weight to what the Republicans are saying now. Talk is cheap. Wait till we see the new Senate seated and Barack is sworn in to see what they really will do. The really important thing to see is how the media treats Obama. If they like him they will cast the Republicans as obstructionists. If they go against him they will blame the Dems for failing to pass bills.