In their own words: Harry Reid & Barack Obama
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., May 2005:
“The filibuster is ... part of the fabric of this institution. ... It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail. ... And it is very much in keeping with the government established by the Framers of our Constitution — limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances. ... (T)he filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. ... (The Founding Fathers) established a government so that no one person — and no single party — could have total control.”
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., April 2005:
“I urge all of us to think not just about winning every debate but about protecting free and democratic debate. ... (E)veryone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster ... then the fighting, the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse. ... (I)f the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything.”
Thursday last, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spearheaded the effort to end some judicial filibusters. The Democrat-controlled Senate voted 52-48 to do so. President Obama praised the move.
Thanksgiving has come early for America. Democrats, already reeling from the many failures of ObamaCare, have cooked their own goose and drowned their future Senate majority in their own hypocritical juices.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Thursday wrap
- Calling out Russia: But weakly
- The Justice Department’s improper political agenda
- Digitized medical records: They’ve become an unsecured threat
- A Pa. Senate lawsuit?: The claptrap of connivers
- Palmer v. District of Columbia: Upholding the 2nd Amendment
- The China question
- The Western Psych grand jury report: Do the right thing