Hi 28° | Lo 3°

Letter: The real Senate lawlessness

What can one count on? The traditional list is death and taxes. One should probably include Grant Bosse’s getting something very wrong.

His July 21 column (“Shaheen willing to ignore rules she doesn’t like,” Sunday Monitor Viewpoints) rambles for 847 words on his version of the distinction between government of laws and government of men.

When one undertakes a historical analysis, the basic facts must be factual. Bosse’s historical method is best described in his own words: “That conversation (between Washington and Jefferson) wasn’t documented until 1850, and probably never happened, but I’d really like to believe it did.”

In other words, history is what he wishes it to be.

Ditto his failed attempt to misrepresent the number of bills and nominations held up by the Republican Senate minority. Were they filibustered? No, by Bosse’s reckoning the problem was cloture votes. Why were there so many cloture votes? Filibusters, of course, except now the system is so broken that minority senators no longer have to stand and read the telephone book. One has only to declare his intention to not do so in order to force the cloture vote. Thus can a lone senator prevent any bill or nomination from being voted upon without a 60 vote super-majority cloture vote. Once again, Bosse uses facts that he wishes were so instead of the generally accepted ones.

Finally, Bosse connects the two non-facts to conclude that Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is acting lawlessly by supporting a bipartisan agreement to require simple majority votes for seven specific executive branch nominees.

The U.S. Senate has become a lawless body but, predictably, not in the way Bosse claims.

The Republican minority has, declared as dogma by its leader, chosen to ignore its constitutional responsibility to govern. Single-minded opposition to President Obama’s every initiative is the real lawlessness, and that’s the fact.



Legacy Comments7

And President Obama's initiatives have been what? Here's a hint, SPEND SPEND SPEND in a bad economy. And that has accomplished what?

Economists call it counter-cyclical spending. In recessions, government spending increases to "prime the economic pump". It's economic practice with decades of real world support behind it, beginning with FDR's New Deal, and continuing right through to the present. The EU has discovered what 'austerity' measures and an obsession with public debt did to their economies. We are slowly pulling out of the Bush Depression, the worst economic crisis to hit us since the Great Depression. But that's been no thanks to Republicans, who have fought against every economic stimulus package proposed by Obama. Dick Cheney famously said that Reagan proved that "deficits don't matter." Except when there is a Democrat in the Oval Office. History shows Republicans are awfully good at creating the conditions that cause deficits, and then turning around and blaming Democrats for the deficits they helped create. The hypocrisy of the Republicans and the Tealiban Party on the issue of debt is matched only by their chutzpah in thinking anyone should take them seriously on economic issues.

The soc/left controlled both house for the first 2 yrs of the current resident's regime and they still have the "power of the presidency" and still can not get things done not becuase of him the person but clearlt failed policies. Since he started the median income is down, jobs are down, everyone (even the unions) have found out Bamacare is a horrible mess. Even could only be done pieces (if at all). Even the author of the bill (and his ghost writers) say its "a train wreck".Even though he has worked hard for us by bowing to leaders of other countries and bringing Islamists tied to jihad activities to the WH, the national debt is way off the charts. Supporting such a path would be legislatively irresponsible. Bending over backward to comprise with insane still leave you with insanity.

Your first sentence is inaccurate. Thanks to post-election wrangling and Ted Kennedy's illness, Democrats had a working majority for only a few weeks during those first two years. You can look it up. And the rest of your post is partisan boilerplate that is a distortion of the facts on each of the issues you mention.

Superb letter, Mr. Politt.

Thank you Mr. Politt for getting it straight! The right side of the aisle is simply unwilling to govern. My party right or wrong (mostly wrong/always wrong) is not putting the country first.

Thankyou, Mr. Politt

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.