The coolest place on the internet, according to this tagline.
AskArchiveFAQ

March 6, 2013
If past is any indicator, a Democratic “threat” to reform the filibuster is much like a Charlie Brown threat to go home if Lucy doesn’t play nice with the football this time. This isn’t the first time the Democratic leadership in the Senate has made noises about reforming the filibuster; it’s not even the first time they’ve admitted that they screwed up filibuster reform last time but are serious about it this time. Democrats always balk at the last minute, so don’t expect this to go anywhere. source

If past is any indicator, a Democratic “threat” to reform the filibuster is much like a Charlie Brown threat to go home if Lucy doesn’t play nice with the football this time. This isn’t the first time the Democratic leadership in the Senate has made noises about reforming the filibuster; it’s not even the first time they’ve admitted that they screwed up filibuster reform last time but are serious about it this time. Democrats always balk at the last minute, so don’t expect this to go anywhere. source

19:28 // 1 year ago
January 5, 2013
The talking filibuster movement picked up a little steam a couple days ago, with Democratic Sens. Udall, Merkley and Harkin presenting a resolution to establish the reform. The “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” ideal of the filibuster is, in fact, not how business is conducted in the Senate these days — Senators can block legislation from being brought for a vote without holding or talking from the floor, and as a consequence bear far less public accountability for the decision than advocates of reform say there would be under the new rule. What do you guys think?

The talking filibuster movement picked up a little steam a couple days ago, with Democratic Sens. Udall, Merkley and Harkin presenting a resolution to establish the reform. The “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” ideal of the filibuster is, in fact, not how business is conducted in the Senate these days — Senators can block legislation from being brought for a vote without holding or talking from the floor, and as a consequence bear far less public accountability for the decision than advocates of reform say there would be under the new rule. What do you guys think?

20:24 // 1 year ago