With the US Senate race here now in full gear, it’s time to explore which candidate, Senator Scott Brown or challenger Elizabeth Warren, is more intent on making the Senate work.
To comment on BostonGlobe.com, please sign up or log in
Access to full articles and quality reporting of The Boston Globe at BostonGlobe.com
Sign up
Unlimited access to BostonGlobe.com for only 99 cents for the first 4 weeks.
warrens vows are worth as much as her credibility. or yours scribe for that matter as long as you pretend along with a couple of other globies that you're practicing the art of journalism. question 3. mayor menino, it was written back in jan. by a globe writer that "you stop using boston public school superintendent carol johnson as a cover." would you care to comment on that? ma
Scot, do not expect the filibuster to be reined in. Neither party wants to give up the only leverage they have when they are in the minority in the senate.
Partisan blather. If the Democrats lose the Senate their interest in filibuster "reform" is going to disappear in a hea009rtbeat. Harry Reid could've eliminated the filibuster in 2009, he had 60 votes until Kennedy died. Why didn't he? Because the Democrats will be in the minority again someday and they plan to filibuster a lot.
Excellent piece. The individual personalities, even the constitution of parties at present, are much less important than the is restoration of democracy in America.
Hi Guys:
Jspencer: Well, Warren's on record now. If the Democrats lose and she flips her vote on filibuster reform, it would be a large mark of hypocrisy.
Richmond: We have to go back to the future on this. For years, the Senate worked reasonably well under the assumption that almost all votes should be decided on a majority, not a super-majority basis. Regardless of whose side you favor, you can't have a Legislature that needs 60 votes ever to get anything done.
Waytoo: I said I'd take another read of your posts in June has arrived. I have to say, not much seems to have changed in Crazy-land.
Mike: You probably don't recall this, but for years I pushed Mayor Menino on a regular basis to reverse his opposition to charter schools. He did. I think charters are one of the most important education innovations to come along in Boston.
Democracy continues to be an experiment in human governance. It aspires to give a voice to everyone. That goal is elusive, to say the least. Money, access, gamesmanship all trump other variables too often. How often the minority imposes it's will on the majority is a matter for statisticians. Whether the outcome is good or bad is inevitably in the eye of the beholder. The goal of rebalancing the process in the senate, specifically regarding the filibuster rules, speaks directly to our shared sense of needing to have a voice, even if we're in the minority. Changing something like that touches lots of nerves in everyone, and is unlikely to move easily. As for the input of Brown vs. Warren, both of them are saddled with living in the shadow of someone who had the job for about half a century. Neither one of these people, at this point, can bring the personal power he had.
Scott refused to be interviewed. I am amazed that this poor excuse for a public worker feels so smug about his past and future performance that he can refuse to be interviewed. Massachusetts does NOT need a senator so closeminded and set in his ways that he goes without listening and answering to the people. Or isn't it the people's seat anymore now that you're in it? You will find that it is and you're back to asking for favors from outlet mall developers instead of wall street bankers.
Comparing Brown's record to Warren's campaign promises isn't exactly apples to apples. There's no assurance she'd actually follow through on the rhetoric once in office.
Thin: That is true, certainly, but if she wins and then doesn't, she certainly will have made a very early flip-flop -- and will have some explaining to do. Meanwhile, Brown voted to filibuster the equal-pay thing yesterday. Why couldn't he say: Look, guys, I don't support this in its current form, but I am going to vote to break the filibuster, for three reasons: 1) I can then vote against it on the actual floor vote; and 2) on principle, issues like this should be decided by a majority vote, not a super-majority; it doesn't rise to the super-majority level; and further 3) I want to set an example that the Senate should work almost all the time on a majority-vote, not a super-majority-vote, basis.
One problem is the minority always screams their rights are being taken away and the minority shifts every few sessions. "They had it, we should" That attitude is just as bad. Totally agree on the holds. One aside, a budget can't be filibustered so no excuse for Reid over the past 3+ years in not submitting one.
OT -Did you look into Brett Kimberlin? It is still going and getting worse.
Mr. Lehigh: I agree with your premise that filibuster reform is a big issue and a necessary reform, but this is an empty piece. Professor Warren, a candidate who has brought her own credibility into serious question, would have no ability to bring about this chnage as a first-year senator. I further submit, based on my experience with and understanding on the human condition, that she has no real intention to do so, particularly if the Democrats lose their Senate majority. That's my subtantive point; now for my gratuitous dig: She says: "If a senator wants to filibuster, that is OK, but that senator should be required to step out onto the Senate floor and actually stand up and talk every single time, with the whole country watching on C-SPAN." Professor Warren doesn't seem to realize that outside North Korea, the Mass. Democratic convention and law school, it is pretty hard to get the whole population to do what you tell them to do.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Isdad: Well, she has pledged to support that package. There's no telling for certain, but one assumes it will come up again. For one, Reid has said he made a mistake in helping scuttle it; for two, if the GOP wins Senate control, they will likely have a change of heart on filibuster reform and bring it or something very much like it up. If she flip-flops, well, that's a story, right? But to say it's empty piece is to say it's not relevant to ask anyone where they stand or how they will vote in the future.
I think you may have misunderstood the comment on C-SPAN. I can't imagine she thought she could somehow compel the country to watch; she certainly does overestimate the interest most folks would have, though. That said, under those reforms, the filibusterers would certainly be subject to much more reportage than is now the case; current a filibuster is just a theoretical thing: You signal your intent to filibuster but never have to do so, while the majority party does have to muster the 60 votes to move ahead. So that would be an important change.
Begolf: That is the mentality, agreed. No, I'm sorry, the other slipped my mind.
want to reform the filibuster again, though perhaps not
On this one issue Warren is saying all the right things, but campaign promises must be taken with a grain of salt, while a performance record is tangible. Neither of these candidates is presenting a larger vision just yet. Among the two major party candidates, supporting one or the other will involve shelving misgivings, since both have hedged their answers on various other issues. I can't say that I'm liking the choices right now, and it sure won't be any fun trying to decide whom I dislike less.
I've been saying (at least to myself) for years that the increasing problem of the filibuster is that nobody ever actually has to do it. The filibuster is a perfectly workable tool of the Senate--a body which is intended to be a "speedbump" in the political process, by design, btw. It's just an absolutely pointless, and in fact detrimental, tool when there's zero cost to wave it around and stop all function. The filibuster needs to be something you can't just bluff with, you can't just say "hey, I'm going to filibuster that" and never have to back it up. I'm extremely glad to see I'm not the only one who sees that, and that there's work in place trying to change that. Filibuster needs to be something that requires sacrifice, requires some genuine _cost_ to use, or else it's an effective veto. And for those who insist that they'll just refuse to act on this if the Dems are in charge... that's always a risk. But I've also been annoyed for years when the Democrats make a change to take advantage of being in charge, when you just know the Republicans are going to take advantage of it about 10 times as hard when they have the chance. Hopefully both parties will eventually learn their lesson and stop trying to rape the system to abuse their power knowing that it's just going to be used against them down the road.
"if the GOP wins Senate control, they will likely have a change of heart on filibuster reform": that may be true. But Democrats will also have a change of heart. If Warren wins but the Reps control the Senate, will she vote to eliminate the filibuster, knowing it would make Democrats impotent?
And what's more, Scot, will YOU still be in favor of eliminating the filibuster?
Y'know, supermajority requirements are not absurd. We require a 2/3 majority to override a veto or ratify a treaty. We require 3/4 of the states to amend the Constitution. One can make a reasonable argument that if 40% of the people oppose a law, perhaps that law is a "tyranny of the majority"-type law and should not be imposed on the 40%.
Waytoo:
We realize that you, probably alone among Americans, believe that one party is totally virtuous and the other totally hypocritical. The reason we don't respond, I think, is that your posts are: 1) silly and 2) tedious. I know I said I'd take another look in June, but really, couldn't you try to make a civil and intelligent argument?
Given her statements it is hard to believe she will be anything but a shill for Reid.
1. Indian heritage
2. 1st person ever to breast feed and take NJ bar
3. Been fighting for 25 years for people - really, while teaching law?
4. The book she co-wrote on bankruptcy got absolutely skewered by a leading bankruptcy expert at the time and even floated academic fraud on the book.
Republicans get fact checked to death while all Dem statements are taken at face value.
Again, Bret Kimberlin.
Thanks for the courteous and thoughtful reply to my snarky comment. I guess you're right about the utility of the effort -- we can't just not ask the question because we figure they'll all say anything, right? But I must say, I find everything she says more and more unconvincing. I would like to see a question -- maybe at a debate -- aimed at both candidates along the lines of: Explain whether and what kind of filibuster reform you want (which she has), and explain what specific steps you think you would take as a senator to achieve it. As for my dig about Prof. Warren forcing everyone to watch C-SPAN, that's just an attempt to humorously call attention to what I perceive as her law-school-professor authoritarian streak (which I predict will not serve her well in debates).
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us - if at all - not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us - if at all - not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.
Comments
warrens vows are worth as much as her credibility. or yours scribe for that matter as long as you pretend along with a couple of other globies that you're practicing the art of journalism. question 3. mayor menino, it was written back in jan. by a globe writer that "you stop using boston public school superintendent carol johnson as a cover." would you care to comment on that? ma
Scot, do not expect the filibuster to be reined in. Neither party wants to give up the only leverage they have when they are in the minority in the senate.
Partisan blather. If the Democrats lose the Senate their interest in filibuster "reform" is going to disappear in a hea009rtbeat. Harry Reid could've eliminated the filibuster in 2009, he had 60 votes until Kennedy died. Why didn't he? Because the Democrats will be in the minority again someday and they plan to filibuster a lot.
Excellent piece. The individual personalities, even the constitution of parties at present, are much less important than the is restoration of democracy in America.
Hi Guys: Jspencer: Well, Warren's on record now. If the Democrats lose and she flips her vote on filibuster reform, it would be a large mark of hypocrisy. Richmond: We have to go back to the future on this. For years, the Senate worked reasonably well under the assumption that almost all votes should be decided on a majority, not a super-majority basis. Regardless of whose side you favor, you can't have a Legislature that needs 60 votes ever to get anything done. Waytoo: I said I'd take another read of your posts in June has arrived. I have to say, not much seems to have changed in Crazy-land. Mike: You probably don't recall this, but for years I pushed Mayor Menino on a regular basis to reverse his opposition to charter schools. He did. I think charters are one of the most important education innovations to come along in Boston.
Democracy continues to be an experiment in human governance. It aspires to give a voice to everyone. That goal is elusive, to say the least. Money, access, gamesmanship all trump other variables too often. How often the minority imposes it's will on the majority is a matter for statisticians. Whether the outcome is good or bad is inevitably in the eye of the beholder. The goal of rebalancing the process in the senate, specifically regarding the filibuster rules, speaks directly to our shared sense of needing to have a voice, even if we're in the minority. Changing something like that touches lots of nerves in everyone, and is unlikely to move easily. As for the input of Brown vs. Warren, both of them are saddled with living in the shadow of someone who had the job for about half a century. Neither one of these people, at this point, can bring the personal power he had.
Scott refused to be interviewed. I am amazed that this poor excuse for a public worker feels so smug about his past and future performance that he can refuse to be interviewed. Massachusetts does NOT need a senator so closeminded and set in his ways that he goes without listening and answering to the people. Or isn't it the people's seat anymore now that you're in it? You will find that it is and you're back to asking for favors from outlet mall developers instead of wall street bankers.
Lizzie Liar? Is Eric Lapdog writing your comments now?
Comparing Brown's record to Warren's campaign promises isn't exactly apples to apples. There's no assurance she'd actually follow through on the rhetoric once in office.
Thin: That is true, certainly, but if she wins and then doesn't, she certainly will have made a very early flip-flop -- and will have some explaining to do. Meanwhile, Brown voted to filibuster the equal-pay thing yesterday. Why couldn't he say: Look, guys, I don't support this in its current form, but I am going to vote to break the filibuster, for three reasons: 1) I can then vote against it on the actual floor vote; and 2) on principle, issues like this should be decided by a majority vote, not a super-majority; it doesn't rise to the super-majority level; and further 3) I want to set an example that the Senate should work almost all the time on a majority-vote, not a super-majority-vote, basis.
Brown is very canny and votes "bipartisan" only when it doesn't matter.
One problem is the minority always screams their rights are being taken away and the minority shifts every few sessions. "They had it, we should" That attitude is just as bad. Totally agree on the holds. One aside, a budget can't be filibustered so no excuse for Reid over the past 3+ years in not submitting one. OT -Did you look into Brett Kimberlin? It is still going and getting worse.
Mr. Lehigh: I agree with your premise that filibuster reform is a big issue and a necessary reform, but this is an empty piece. Professor Warren, a candidate who has brought her own credibility into serious question, would have no ability to bring about this chnage as a first-year senator. I further submit, based on my experience with and understanding on the human condition, that she has no real intention to do so, particularly if the Democrats lose their Senate majority. That's my subtantive point; now for my gratuitous dig: She says: "If a senator wants to filibuster, that is OK, but that senator should be required to step out onto the Senate floor and actually stand up and talk every single time, with the whole country watching on C-SPAN." Professor Warren doesn't seem to realize that outside North Korea, the Mass. Democratic convention and law school, it is pretty hard to get the whole population to do what you tell them to do.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Isdad: Well, she has pledged to support that package. There's no telling for certain, but one assumes it will come up again. For one, Reid has said he made a mistake in helping scuttle it; for two, if the GOP wins Senate control, they will likely have a change of heart on filibuster reform and bring it or something very much like it up. If she flip-flops, well, that's a story, right? But to say it's empty piece is to say it's not relevant to ask anyone where they stand or how they will vote in the future. I think you may have misunderstood the comment on C-SPAN. I can't imagine she thought she could somehow compel the country to watch; she certainly does overestimate the interest most folks would have, though. That said, under those reforms, the filibusterers would certainly be subject to much more reportage than is now the case; current a filibuster is just a theoretical thing: You signal your intent to filibuster but never have to do so, while the majority party does have to muster the 60 votes to move ahead. So that would be an important change. Begolf: That is the mentality, agreed. No, I'm sorry, the other slipped my mind. want to reform the filibuster again, though perhaps not
On this one issue Warren is saying all the right things, but campaign promises must be taken with a grain of salt, while a performance record is tangible. Neither of these candidates is presenting a larger vision just yet. Among the two major party candidates, supporting one or the other will involve shelving misgivings, since both have hedged their answers on various other issues. I can't say that I'm liking the choices right now, and it sure won't be any fun trying to decide whom I dislike less.
Scott- can't understand why you or anyone else believes a word from her mouth,let alone a sentence!
I've been saying (at least to myself) for years that the increasing problem of the filibuster is that nobody ever actually has to do it. The filibuster is a perfectly workable tool of the Senate--a body which is intended to be a "speedbump" in the political process, by design, btw. It's just an absolutely pointless, and in fact detrimental, tool when there's zero cost to wave it around and stop all function. The filibuster needs to be something you can't just bluff with, you can't just say "hey, I'm going to filibuster that" and never have to back it up. I'm extremely glad to see I'm not the only one who sees that, and that there's work in place trying to change that. Filibuster needs to be something that requires sacrifice, requires some genuine _cost_ to use, or else it's an effective veto. And for those who insist that they'll just refuse to act on this if the Dems are in charge... that's always a risk. But I've also been annoyed for years when the Democrats make a change to take advantage of being in charge, when you just know the Republicans are going to take advantage of it about 10 times as hard when they have the chance. Hopefully both parties will eventually learn their lesson and stop trying to rape the system to abuse their power knowing that it's just going to be used against them down the road.
"if the GOP wins Senate control, they will likely have a change of heart on filibuster reform": that may be true. But Democrats will also have a change of heart. If Warren wins but the Reps control the Senate, will she vote to eliminate the filibuster, knowing it would make Democrats impotent? And what's more, Scot, will YOU still be in favor of eliminating the filibuster? Y'know, supermajority requirements are not absurd. We require a 2/3 majority to override a veto or ratify a treaty. We require 3/4 of the states to amend the Constitution. One can make a reasonable argument that if 40% of the people oppose a law, perhaps that law is a "tyranny of the majority"-type law and should not be imposed on the 40%.
Waytoo: We realize that you, probably alone among Americans, believe that one party is totally virtuous and the other totally hypocritical. The reason we don't respond, I think, is that your posts are: 1) silly and 2) tedious. I know I said I'd take another look in June, but really, couldn't you try to make a civil and intelligent argument?
Given her statements it is hard to believe she will be anything but a shill for Reid. 1. Indian heritage 2. 1st person ever to breast feed and take NJ bar 3. Been fighting for 25 years for people - really, while teaching law? 4. The book she co-wrote on bankruptcy got absolutely skewered by a leading bankruptcy expert at the time and even floated academic fraud on the book. Republicans get fact checked to death while all Dem statements are taken at face value. Again, Bret Kimberlin.
Thanks for the courteous and thoughtful reply to my snarky comment. I guess you're right about the utility of the effort -- we can't just not ask the question because we figure they'll all say anything, right? But I must say, I find everything she says more and more unconvincing. I would like to see a question -- maybe at a debate -- aimed at both candidates along the lines of: Explain whether and what kind of filibuster reform you want (which she has), and explain what specific steps you think you would take as a senator to achieve it. As for my dig about Prof. Warren forcing everyone to watch C-SPAN, that's just an attempt to humorously call attention to what I perceive as her law-school-professor authoritarian streak (which I predict will not serve her well in debates).
We are the hollow men We are the stuffed men Leaning together Headpiece filled with straw. Alas! Our dried voices, when We whisper together Are quiet and meaningless As wind in dry grass Or rats' feet over broken glass In our dry cellar Shape without form, shade without colour, Paralysed force, gesture without motion; Those who have crossed With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom Remember us - if at all - not as lost Violent souls, but only As the hollow men The stuffed men.
We are the hollow men We are the stuffed men Leaning together Headpiece filled with straw. Alas! Our dried voices, when We whisper together Are quiet and meaningless As wind in dry grass Or rats' feet over broken glass In our dry cellar Shape without form, shade without colour, Paralysed force, gesture without motion; Those who have crossed With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom Remember us - if at all - not as lost Violent souls, but only As the hollow men The stuffed men.