Watcher’s Council Forum–Did Rand Paul’s Filibuster Last Week Have An Effect?

Forum: Did Senator Rand Paul’s Filibuster Last Week Have An Effect?

JoshuaPundit on Mar 11 2013 at 2:20 am | The Council Forum

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day. This week’s question: Did Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster last week have an effect, and if so, what do you think it was?

The Noisy Room: It definitely had an effect and won Paul some points with Conservatives, as well as the Tea Party and there was certainly cred earned with Libertarians. You may be seeing the birth of a new movement in which Libertarians, Constitutional Conservatives, the Tea Party and some Democrats start to come together to stand for the Constitution and founding principles. I believe the filibuster was an indication that the Republicans have begun a journey that takes them to the same destination as the Whigs.

The filibuster was a show of resolve from what could well be a new dynamic in Conservative/Libertarian leadership.

On the other side, the great stone-faces of the ‘most transparent administration ever’ found themselves compelled to blink. From establishment RINOs such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham to the staunch Progressive Left, they in one distressed voice decried the filibuster as grand-standing. Meanwhile, in true Alinsky fashion, those such as Van Jones and Code Pink declared their ‘support’ of Rand Paul’s efforts, in what I believe, is an effort to discredit him through association.

A new Mr. Smith went to Washington, and in the tradition of Mr. Smiths, sowed consternation among the Old Guard. ‘Stand with Rand’ became the clarion call in a moment of moral clarity that caused even the cynical to turn their gaze toward the Ten-Mile-Square and consider — if only for a moment (or maybe thirteen hours) — that there may yet be noble causes and noble men to carry their standard.

It may only be one domino. But that’s what it takes. The cascade? That comes later and nothing can stop it. The Senator from Kentucky has everyone’s attention. For real leadership, that’s the first requirement. The New Guard of the Tea Party has begun to fight.

Bookworm Room:

The Independent Sentinel: Rand Paul’s filibuster got the attention of the public and perhaps they will start thinking about how our constitutional rights are being compromised by this administration.

The drone program certainly needs some guidelines on privacy rights.

I don’t agree with everything that Rand Paul says but for me it was exhilarating to see an honest politician having the courage to stand up for his beliefs for almost 13 hours! For a moment, I thought the Grand Ole Party was back. Establishment Republicans missed a real opportunity.

I think McCain and Graham felt upstaged by a sincere man who was not trying to upstage them. They, on the other hand, were trying to make political hay.

Here we have the president using sequester against Republicans, shutting down the White House tours, cutting off tuition assistance to our military, etc. and Graham and McCain partake in a 20-car motorcade and fancy dinner with him. It’s a disgrace.

Lindsey Graham should concentrate on Benghazi, McCain should focus on our military, and they should both leave the Constitution to Rand Paul.

The Razor: Paul’s filibuster as energized the libertarian base of the GOP. Krauthammer calls it a “stroke of genius” and says the event will launch his national persona. Even limousine liberal John Cusack tweeted “where are the democrats? Where are the progressives?”
As Paul was filibustering, the GOP guard was dining with Obama – proving that the Old Guard really has no sense of timing. And the near hysteria that followed by the likes of John McCain only shows how out of touch they are with the grassroots.

Right now I’m expecting a 2016 contest between Christy and Paul. Both have completely different visions; Christy is a liberal that will pull from the Left while Rand is a saner version of his old man.
At this point I’d be happy with either one of them but for different reasons.

Ask Marion: Although I did not officially participate this week, I must say that my opinions, and post if I had participated, would be very much in line with my buddy, Terresa at the Noisy Room.  Though this filibuster we saw the first strong challenges against the status quo, the Obama administration and the Old Guard of the Republican Party.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Technorati Tags: filibuster,Rand Paul,changing winds,bloggers,alternative media,Watchers Council,changing of the guard,Constitution

If You Give Up Your Rights….

Photo by: amgrassroots American Grassroots

"If you give up your rights now, don't expect to get them back" -@SenRandPaul #StandWithRand #Filibuster pic.twitter.com/rs82KdZc6s

Rand Paul, With a Little Help From Some Patriotic Friends, Conducts Old Fashioned Filibuster Over Brennan Nomination… Focused on Drone Issue, That Every American Should See and Hear!

Victory:  Eric Holder Sent Letter To Rand Paul On Obama’s Authority To Target U.S. Citizens With Drones: ‘The Answer Is No’

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced during Thursday’s briefing that Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) this morning regarding the administration’s policy on drone strikes targeting Americans on U.S. soil. Holder’s letter stated definitively that the U.S. would not use “weaponized” drones to targets American citizens on domestic soil. Read Full Article HERE

Technorati Tags: Rand Paul,Ted Cruz,Marco Rubio,John Brennan,Eric Holder,DOJ,Obamaland,victory,tea party,changing of the guard,John McCain,Senate,filibusters,Rand Paul filibuster,saving America,drone,5th Amendment,Fifth Amendment,Constitution,Bill of Rights,New Guard,GOP

Hagel Confirmation Blocked; Republican Filibuster Holds

Breitbart News: The Senate has failed, 40-58, to pass a motion by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to close debate on the nomination of Chuck Hagel to the post of Secretary of Defense. A Republican filibuster held, as Democrats failed to muster the 60 votes necessary to pass cloture and move to a full vote on Hagel's confirmation.

New evidence emerged Thursday of speeches that Hagel had given in 2007 and 2008. The former included endorsement for a U.S. consulate in Iran, and allegedly also included a comment accusing Israel of controlling the State Department. The latter, a speech to the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) in 2008, was not disclosed to the Senate Armed Services Committee as requested, and was produced by the ADC today.

Related:

Did Hagel rig vote to win Senate seat?

Did Obama Steal The Election With Hagel’s Help? – Updated

Alert – Source: New Info on Benghazi Is Going to Come Out & Leave People ‘Amazed & Shocked’

Has John Brennan, Our Next CIA Director, Converted to Islam

White House On Benghazi: ‘No More Questions!!’

John Brennan, Obama’s CIA Pick, IS A Muslim Convert… Brotherhood Mafia’s Infiltration Near Complete

Hillary Tap Dancing and Snapping… Makes Her Look as Guilty as Most Everyone Believes

Hillary Doesn’t Deserve Our Admiration or Another Shot at the Presidency

Clinton Body Bags, NOW ADD BENGHAZI

REMEMBERING: Discovered papers: Hanoi Directed Kerry… And Now He Is Going To Be Secretary of State??

Technorati Tags: Senate,politics,Chuck Hagel,confirmation hearings,filibuster

Erickson, Malkin: Filibusted - Reid’s Rules Scheme Defeated in the Senate

Filibuster deform is dead. The Democrats, campaigning on the mantel, yet again, of “reform,” have failed to get the votes to kill the filibuster. Ironically, it was the Democrats themselves who killed it. The big question is why.

Frankly, looking at the map for 2012, it isn’t too hard to figure out why. The Democrats are nervous about losing the Senate. A number of states are up for grabs. North Dakota looks like it will definitely switch to the GOP. Virginia is a strong possibility. Already, the GOP is in fine shape to hold its own.

With Republicans making advances and most likely going to pick up House seats due to redistricting, the Democrats’ willingness to scrap filibuster deform is a good early indicator that they are worried about 2012.

— Erick Erickson

Reid’s Rules Scheme Defeated in the Senate

01/28/2011

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-N.V.) relinquished his plans to drastically change the rules of the Senate in order to pass his liberal agenda with a smaller majority.

Reid’s effort to kill the filibuster, which is the minority’s right to effect legislation, went down in flames in the final rules changes on Thursday.
“In the short term, this is a victory for conservatives. As part of the current minority party in the Senate, their rights will be preserved,"  said Marty Gold, a former Senate leadership aide who is now an attorney at Covington and Burling.

"In addition, extreme mechanisms that had been proposed to advance new rules and limit filibusters came to nothing in the end,” said Gold.

The rules voted on the floor were less important than the gentleman’s agreements made between Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Both agreed to never try again to use the nuclear option, which is to change the rules of the Senate with only 51 votes, instead of the established 67 vote margin. McConnell and Reid also agreed to use the filibuster and amendment tree procedural maneuvers less often in the future.

“What we need most in the Senate is a change in behavior in addition to this change in rules. We need to preserve the Senate as a forum for minority rights. We need to preserve the 60-vote requirement for major votes. That will force consensus. That will cause us to work together,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) on Thursday.

Alexander negotiated the bipartisan deal with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y) at the behest of McConnell and Reid.

For the past month, Reid has been trying to change the rules of the Senate so that he could pass Democrat-supported bills with 51 votes instead of 60. The Democrat majority in the Senate went from 59-53 after the Republican wave in the midterm elections.

McConnell waged war against the Democrats’ attempted rules changes, to the point that Reid was forced to shut down the Senate for weeks to figure out how to proceed. By mid-January, Reid folded and agreed to bipartisan negotiations on any new rules.

Many believe that Reid conceded defeat because he realized the likelihood of the Republicans taking over the Senate in 2012. If Reid’s rules to trample the rights of the minority had gone into effect, the Democrats could be the ones who suffer the most in the long term.

“The rules compromise reached today will look like a half-measure to the liberal blogosphere,” said Gold. “But if Democrats go into the minority in two years, liberals will be happy for this day.”

The final rules changes which passed the Senate were crafted by bipartisan agreement and only moderately change the institution to end secret holds and waive the reading of amendments.

“Holds” give the power of one state, via one Senator, to stop a vote. The “secret hold” allowed for flexible negotiations behind closed doors to fix the Senator’s concerns without interest groups or other forces intervening. The resolution to end secret holds, which passed 92-4, states that a Senator must publicly disclose a notice of intent to object to any measure or matter.

The rule to waive the reading of amendments, sponsored by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), ends the ability for a Senator to delay a vote by requiring an amendment be read aloud. The resolution, which passed 81-15, says that an amendment cannot be forced read aloud if the text of it is made available 72 hours in advance of the vote.

More importantly than what happened on the floor, McConnell and Reid made the gentleman's agreement about how the Senate would operate going forward.

“McConnell and Reid both forswore using the nuclear option,” said a source close to the negotiations. “McConnell said that if he’s the Leader in the next Congress, he will not use the same extraordinary means to ram new rules down the throats of the Democrats in retribution.”

Also, the two leaders agreed to not use two important procedural methods as often in order to preserve the great rights of the Senate: to amend and to debate.

McConnell agreed that the Republicans would use the filibuster less often in this Congress. To filibuster means to debate a bill without a time limit to prevent a vote on a bill. Cloture is the process of ending the filibuster, and under current rules adopted in 1975, takes 60 votes to pass. The minority uses the filibuster as a stalling tactic to have more power over debate and vote.

Reid wanted to change the rules so that bills would get voted on with only 51 votes, which would be a lot easier for him to get with 53 Democrats, than the 60 needed now.

In return, Reid agreed to be less active in filling up the amendment tree to block out all Republican amendments. The amendment tree refers to the process of putting amendments on a bill as it goes through the legislation process.

The Majority Leader has the power to add the maximum amount of amendments to the tree, which locks out any amendments by the minority party. Over the past two years, Reid has used his power to fill up the amendment tree drastically more often than had been done in the past.

“The Majority Leader used that power to cut off all amendments and debate 44 times. That’s more than the last 6 majority leaders combined,” said Sen. Alexander on the floor.

Reid agreed to not use up all the amendments, so that the Republicans can offer their alternatives to legislation.

Finally, McConnell and Reid agreed to lessen by one-third the number of presidential appointments which require Senate confirmation. Intending to lessen the backlog of high-level appointees, the final deal is expected to exempt approximately 400 political appointees from confirmation.

The appointee part of the agreement seems to be a victory for Reid because Democratic President Obama has more power to appoint without Senate approval. But Alexander sees it as a win for common sense.

“We confirm too many people. It is not necessary for us to confirm the PR officer for a minor department. There is no need for that,” said Alexander. “We need to be able to work on more important issues.”

Overall, the Republicans came out of this high-stakes political fight ahead because the minority party could have easily been trampled in the Senate.

I’d say the final victor is the American people, who keep the right to be heard, whether their Senator is in the majority or minority.

“What they have done...is create a window in which we have had a good, open discussion about the kind of place we want to work, the kind of Senate we hope would serve the American people the best,” said Alexander.

“And we have come to a consensus about a change in behavior, which I believe, in the end, will be more important than the change in the rules,” he said.

By: Miss Emily Miller is a senior editor of HUMAN EVENTS. Previously, she served as the Deputy Press Secretary at the U.S. Department of State and the Communications Director for the House Majority Whip. Miller also served as an Associate Producer at ABC News and started her career at NBC News. Follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Waivers for Favors Michelle Malkin President Obama's storytellers recently launched a White House blog series... Read More

Pelosi: Lawmakers Should Sacrifice Jobs for Health Care

(AP) House Speaker Pelosi says lawmakers aren't in Washington for job security but 'to do the job for the American people.'

Thursday: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, accompanied by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina, speaks with reporters outside the White House at the end of a health care summit with President Obama and Republicans held at Blair House. (AP Photo)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to back a major overhaul of U.S. health care even if it threatens their political careers, a call to arms that underscores the issue's massive role in this election year.  


Lawmakers sometimes must enact policies that, even if unpopular at the moment, will help the public, Pelosi said in an interview being broadcast Sunday the ABC News program "This Week."


"We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress," she said. "We're here to do the job for the American people."  (Hmmm... this from a women who has held her congressional seat for over a quarter of a century and has reaped personal gain from favorable legislation for her husband's business interests.)


It took courage for Congress to pass Social Security and Medicare, which eventually became highly popular, she said, "and many of the same forces that were at work decades ago are at work again against this bill."

It's unclear whether Pelosi's remarks will embolden or chill dozens of moderate House Democrats who face withering criticisms of the health care proposal in visits with constituents and in national polls. Republican lawmaker unanimously oppose the health care proposals, and many GOP strategists believe voters will turn against Democrats in the November elections.

Pelosi, from San Francisco, is more liberal than scores of her Democratic colleagues. But she generally walks a careful line between urging them to back left-of-center policies and giving them a green light to buck party leaders to improve their re-election hopes.

Her comments to ABC, in the interview released Sunday, seemed to acknowledge the widely held view that Democrats will lose House seats this fall -- maybe a lot. They now control the chamber 255 to 178, with two vacancies. Pelosi stopped well short of suggesting Democrats could lose their majority, but she called on members of her party to make a bold move on health care with no prospects of GOP help.
"Time is up," she said. "We really have to go forth."

Her comments somewhat echoed those of President Obama, who said at the end of last week's bipartisan health care summit that Congress should act on the issue and let voters render their verdicts. "That's what elections are for," he said.

The White House says Obama, perhaps on Wednesday, will announce a "way forward" on health care. He, Pelosi, and Senate Democratic leaders have left little doubt that they hope to pass a Democratic-crafted bill under "budget reconciliation" rules that would bar Republican filibusters in the Senate. It's unclear whether Pelosi can muster the needed votes in the House.

White House officials say they will redouble efforts to remind voters that the Senate passed an Obama-backed health care bill in December, with a super majority of 60 votes. The new plan calls for the House to pass that bill and send it to Obama's desk, and then use Senate budget reconciliation rules to make several changes demanded by House Democrats.

Following a Republican victory in Massachusetts last month, Democrats now control 59 of the Senate's 100 seats, one vote short of the number needed to block GOP filibusters.

Pelosi told CNN that "in a matter of days" Democrats will have specific legislative language on health care to show to the public and to wavering lawmakers. She predicted voters will warm up to the bill once they understand its details.

"When we have a bill," she said, "you can bake the pie, you can sell the pie. But you have to have a pie to sell."

Obama and Democratic lawmakers say they may add several more Republican ideas to their legislative package, even if it's unlikely to attract a single GOP vote. One idea, by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., would focus on battling waste and fraud in the medical system.

The main elements of the Democratic plan are known, and opposed by Republicans in Congress. It would insure about 30 million more Americans over 10 years with subsidies for the poor and a new requirement for nearly everyone to carry health insurance.

It would also bar some insurance company practices, such as denying coverage to people with medical problems. And it would establish government-run exchanges to help individuals and small businesses obtain insurance policies, although it would exclude the "public option" that many liberals wanted.

Fox Nation

Time to hit the phones and faxes tomorrow and let the House and Senate know that we have had enough.  Dump the anti-will of the American people ideology and vote no on ObamaCare once and for all.  Save the greatest healthcare system in the world and your children’s future.  Just Say NO… to the ideologues… Pelosi, Obama and Reid, and then vote then out!!  Tell the Queen we’ve had enough!!

Obama Writing Health Bill to Skirt GOP Filibuster

FOXNews.com

The president reportedly is working on health care legislation intended to reconcile differences between House and Senate Democrats that could be attached to a budget bill and pass with only 51 Senate votes.

President Obama is working on health care legislation intended to reconcile differences between House and Senate Democrats that could be attached to a budget bill and avoid a Republican filibuster, according to a published report.

The president's proposal, which is still being written, will be posted on the Internet by Monday morning, senior administration officials and Congressional aides told the New York Times.

By piggybacking the legislation onto a budget bill, Democrats would be able to advance the bill with a simple majority of just 51 votes, averting a Republican filibuster in the Senate.

The White House signaled Thursday that an aggressive, all-Democratic strategy for overhauling the nation's health system remains a serious option, even as Obama invites Republicans to next week's televised summit to seek possible compromises.

"It will be a reconciliation bill," the Times quoted a Democratic aide as saying. "If Republicans don't come with any substantial offers, this is what we would do."

The administration's stance could set the stage for a political showdown, with Democrats struggling to enact the president's top domestic priority and Republicans trying to block what many conservatives see as government overreach.

Obama's plan, like the House and Senate bills, would expand coverage to some 30 million, require most Americans to carry insurance or face financial penalties, and block insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, the Times reported.

One Capitol Hill Democrat told the Times abortion remains "a wild card."

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Thursday that Obama plans to have a health proposal that "will take some of the best ideas and put them into a framework" ahead of the Feb. 25 summit.

Obama has said he is open to Republican ideas for changing the health care system. But many Democrats seriously doubt GOP leaders will support compromises that could draw enough lawmakers from both parties to create a bipartisan majority.

If next week's meeting does not break the logjam, congressional Democrats will face a tough choice. They can pass a highly diluted health care bill or nothing at all, which would send them into the November elections with a high-profile failure despite their control of Congress and the White House.

Or they can use the aggressive and contentious tactic, known as reconciliation, to pass a far-reaching health care bill in the Senate without having to face the GOP. Democrats lost their ability to block filibusters when Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown won a Senate seat last month.

Both parties have used reconciliation rules in the past. But Republicans have practically dared Democrats to do so on health care, citing polls showing significant opposition to the legislation.

It's unclear whether the House or Senate can muster the necessary votes. Democrats, who now hold 255 of the House's 435 seats, drew only one GOP ally when the House passed its health care bill, 220-215, last November. Since then, one Democrat who voted for the bill has resigned, one has died and a third plans to leave office Feb. 28. Moreover, changes meant to meet Senate demands could peel away enough liberals on one end, and party centrists on the other, to cause the revised bill to fail.

In the Senate, Democrats control 59 seats, and reconciliation rules require only a simple majority. But several Democratic senators have expressed discomfort or outright opposition to using the rules to thwart filibusters on health care.

The White House has invited Republicans to bring their own proposals, but GOP leaders have treated the event warily at best.

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said Thursday, "a productive, bipartisan conversation on health care starts with a clean sheet of paper." His office labeled next week's meeting the "summit of all fears."

But at least one moderate Republican was optimistic about the session.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said if the summit succeeds, a bipartisan bill could be put together and passed within six weeks. "My advice to our Republican leadership is we should view this as a good faith effort and go in there with a consensus list of provisions that we could support and that would make a difference," she said in an interview with The Associated Press.

House Democrats are insisting on several changes to the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve, before Brown was elected to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. The changes include reducing or eliminating a proposed tax on generous employer-provider health plans, and eliminating a Medicaid subsidy aimed only at Nebraska.

Also, some House Democrats who oppose legalized abortion are demanding that the Senate's more permissive language on the topic be replaced by the House provisions. It was unclear Thursday how that might be achieved.

The cost of the legislation -- about $1 trillion over 10 years -- would be paid for through Medicare cuts and a series of tax increases. House officials said Democratic leaders are not yet pressing wary colleagues to back a health care bill under the special procedural rules. That could happen soon, however, if next week's summit fails to produce a bipartisan breakthrough.

House congressional aides said they expect leaders such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to tell colleagues that using all their parliamentary muscle to pass a health care bill -- even if it triggers withering criticism from the right -- is preferable to facing voters empty-handed this fall.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

I hate to tell you, BUT the battle to stop the takeover of our health care is not over.

In 6 days, on February 25, President Obama will hold a "Health Care Summit" where he and Speaker Nancy Pelosi will unveil their "new" health care plan that they are currently writing in secret behind closed doors.

The Left is hoping their "summit" will be the game-changer they need to re-launch their scheme to take over our health care system.

You and I need to make sure that does not happen.

At Americans for Prosperity, we're holding our own Critical Care: The Patients' Summit to deliver a simple message: the American people have rejected this trillion-dollar takeover of health care. So Congress should start over from scratch, or better yet, focus on policies that create jobs and get our economy moving again.

First, we'll gather outside the Blair House at 9:30 a.m. on February 25 where President Obama will be hosting his "summit." We'll make sure attendees like Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid hear our message as they head inside.

Then, beginning at 11:30am we will hold our own Critical Care: The Patients' Summit at the JW Marriott in DC.

If you can't join us in person in Washington, you can still be a part of the Patients' Summit. We'll be Webcasting live online at AmericansforProsperity.org.

Between now and President Obama's "summit," we need to email and call our senators and member of Congress to tell them in advance that the American people do not want another big-government, tax-and-spend, freedom-crushing piece of legislation to come up again.

So, I'm asking you to CLICK HERE to call your elected representatives today.

It's fast. It's easy. More importantly, it makes a difference.

The Left is hoping that we have moved on from the health care battle. They're thinking that President Obama's "summit" is their big chance to get the ball rolling again.

A lot of senators and congressmen are wondering if the mood of the American people has changed.

We've got to show them in a crystal clear fashion that the American people simply do not trust the Washington politicians with our health care.

Thanks for all you're doing and let's keep fighting.

Tim Phillips

PS: You know how hard all of us worked last year to stop this health care takeover. We cannot let victory slip away. Let me know you'll join our Critical Care: The Patients' Summit online or in person on February 25 by CLICKING HERE.

And, let's re-engage on the health care front by calling our senators and representatives today. CLICK HERE