| One of Elizabeth Warren's first power grabs when she arrives in Washington is to try and remove the filibuster from the minority party's arsenal of weapons in the US Senate. This is wrong and she should be ashamed that she is working in this manner.
Over the last several days of post campaign touring across the Commonwealth she has said repeatedly that she wants to remove the filibuster option from the Republicans.
Remember Jimmy Stewart's classic film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? I love that movie. That's what most of us think of when we hear the word "filibuster" -- a single passionate senator speaking for hours about legislation they fiercely oppose until they literally collapse with exhaustion.
But that's not what today's filibuster looks like. In reality, any senator can make a phone call, say they object to a bill, then head out for the night. In the meantime, business comes to a screeching halt.
Who could possibly vote against Jimmy Stewart? I could, and so could Barack Obama and Harry Reid as they did when Republicans made the same attempt just a few short years ago.
Ya see, the US Senate needs 60 votes to end a filibuster, and with 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans the numbers don't quite jive. But that isn't a bad thing. Unlike the House of Representatives, where the filibuster rules were changed years ago, the Senate is there to represent the states, not the people. There are 2 Senators from each state, and because of that a small state gets the same representation as the big states. Which means that the 45 members of the minority party may well represent the greatest majority of the citizens. Of course, the average Democrat and US citizen wouldn't know that because our public schools don't dare to teach REAL important things. They are too busy making sure condoms are available for 12 year olds...
But let's look back at some recent history of the filibuster. In 2005 Bill Frist (R) was the US Senate Majority leader - the same position Harry Reid occupies today. In 2005 Frist made an effort to end the filibuster and was quickly denounced for his power grab.
In 2005 Harry Reid said this:
Rather than changing the Senate rules, shouldn't we be concerned about the largest deficits in the history of the world?" Reid asked at a March 15, 2005 event entitled "Rally to Save the Courts." "This is not about judges, it's about the arrogance of power," Reid said.
Barack Obama had this to say about Bill Frist's move to end the filibuster:
"If the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put and end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse."
Strangely, those very 2 men who once labelled the attempt to end the Senate filibuster as something akin to unconstitutional, now not only support the move, but will advocate for it. I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that they are in power? Gee, ya think?
Now joining the fracus is a self described redskin and first woman to breastfeed while taking the bar exam - Elizabeth Warren. She too was probably against it before she was for it. No flip flopping here folks, just good old fashined rule changes to help the party in power. If you can't win by playing by the rules - change the rules.
Hypocrisy in action my friends.