« Ask the experts! |
| Show me the money »
Filibuster reform has been one of those issues that non-nerds don't get excited about.
Maybe Rand Paul helped change that.
The answer to his question seems obvious, but it also seems to have taken the speechathon to elicit.
Mar 07, 2013 at 05:52 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef017d41956274970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Old school:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Typical Ed- ignore the story completely because of the obvious hypocritical implications until the White House cleans its mess up and gives him a way out.
Now that there is some defense, it suddenly becomes worth commenting on. Nice attempt at a turn around too. An answer so "obvious" that it couldn't be provided for over a week.
Yeah I know, Ed knew it all along. He was just waiting for the rest of us to catch up.
Over time the patterns are way to predictable.
Mar 08, 2013 at 09:15 AM
Yeah, that's the type of calculation that determines the flow of content on this comprehensive 24/7 news service.
For serious, though, I liked what Paul did, and I'm more aligned with those Democrats who joined Paul in the filibuster than the White House on the larger issue here, although I agree with McCain that Paul's question was kind of silly.
But, yes, I'm interested in the filibuster, not just this use of the filibuster.
Ed Cone |
Mar 08, 2013 at 10:00 AM
Generally speaking, it is.
Admit it, Ed. If the White House had never answered Paul's query, you would have never mentioned it. And if this happened during the Bush years, you would have posted on it before the filibuster even started and demanded answers from the White House yourself.
Go ahead and accuse me of viewing everything through a "partisan lens", but moments such as these only reinforce my play calling.
Mar 08, 2013 at 12:22 PM
Rand offered to end his filibuster if Senate liberals could muster the strength to say what the administration did.
Apparently, though, Senate progressives could not state the obvious, choosing instead to ask something akin to "Are you serious? ... Are you serious?".
Mar 08, 2013 at 12:52 PM
Sam, my approach to dealing with ongoing stories is to aim for the most current development at the time I happen to get around to posting.
Beyond that, what you continue to miss on this one is that I liked Paul's filibuster and the emphasis it brought to the issues, on which I find common ground with him.
So it's not just silly to make up reasons for my post, the reason you give is inconsistent with my actual views.
Ed Cone |
Mar 08, 2013 at 01:08 PM
Yeah, I suppose there were more pressing issues that caught your attention between the time the WH announced the drone debacle last week and yesterday. Funny how that happens.
I didn't miss your point either. It's easy to go public with your support of Paul on this issue now that you aren't forced to defend anything.
On the big issues related to terror where Obama has equaled or surpassed Bush in terms of things that liberals/progressives claim to despise, you have been far less prolific and far more passive often avoiding the discussion altogether.
I think it would be hard to argue with that analysis regardless of your justification.
Mar 08, 2013 at 05:48 PM
We're gonna need the wahmbulance, ASAP.
Mar 08, 2013 at 06:07 PM
It's always been remarkable to me how common is the sense of entitlement that allows people to dictate to other people about what those other people should blog.
Mar 11, 2013 at 01:43 PM
Not to mention the alternate universe postulations, asserted as fact, in reaction to a post sympathetic to its alleged victim.
Ed Cone |
Mar 11, 2013 at 01:52 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.