December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy…

…

A date which will live in — Infamy?

Not if you’re HotAir.com — or Google — or Yahoo.

HotAir.com posts NOTHING on Pearl Harbor Day to commemorate the horrific Japanese surprise attack on the American Naval Fleet in port at Pearl Harbor leaving 2,402 Americans killed and 1,282 Americans wounded — many of them civilians.

Pathetic.

This website has gone to crap ever since Michelle Malkin sold out to the highest bidder.

…

HotAir.com — Guaranteed Soft & Squishy™ Or Your Money Back

…

libfreeordie on December 7, 2012

…as always!…STFU!

Wait, and we’re also not a “pure democracy”?

And what is this separation of powers you speak of?

My teachers never informed me of ANY of this!

1. Reform the filibuster so that it remains an available parliamentary tactic in the midst of highly objectionable legislation, but one which is more difficult to use (think having to actually hold the floor), and therefore not invoked on every single bill the other party doesn’t like.

2. Repeal the 17th amendment and return the Senate to its original purpose of being the voice of the states in the federal government, rather than just a smaller version of the House of Representatives.

His earlier chart goes back to 1919.

cam2 on December 7, 2012 at 1:55 PM

I’m talking about the front page of the article. 17 highlighted bills.

Except that Klein is highlighting only a select number of bills that have been filibustered….through 2009.

If he goes back, let’s say to 2000, it would put another perspective about this “reform.”

sentinelrules on December 7, 2012 at 1:50 PM

His earlier chart goes back to 1919.

Use of the filibuster doubled, from 60-70 per year in the Clinton and Bush years to around 140 after Obama took office. He’s not claiming that there were no filibusters during the Bush years, just that there has been a dramatic increase since that time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html

cam2 on December 7, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Except that Klein is highlighting only a select number of bills that have been filibustered….through 2009.

If he goes back, let’s say to 2000, it would put another perspective about this “reform.”

LOL, yeah right. As if Social Security reform wasn’t a big issue at 2006 or that people didn’t notice that bills weren’t getting through the Senate when Bush was president.

sentinelrules on December 7, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Use of the filibuster doubled, from 60-70 per year in the Clinton and Bush years to around 140 after Obama took office. He’s not claiming that there were no filibusters during the Bush years, just that there has been a dramatic increase since that time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html

We stopped in 2009 somewhat arbitrarily, because people noticed bills weren’t getting through the Senate in that year. Also, there weren’t bills of the same magnitude and scale that passed the House and were held up by filibuster in the Senate in the prior four years. I am certainly open to going back and doing more research on that, however.

They purposfully stopped in 1009, not because they were noticing that bills were being stopped in the senate, but because, this time, the dhimpcraptic librul bills were being stopped. Also, including earlier bills would probably have shown that the threat of filibuster by the minority dhims was vastly overused. This librul shill also did not note that the question about filibusters came up in earlier years, particularly concerning appointment of judges, which is a different Constitutional requirement than bills. In this case, the Republicans deliberately opted not to do away with the filibuster because they didn’t think it was right to do so and would not be fair to the minority party. Does anybody here (Mathews and Sigins) see any difference between the rationale for those decisions and the rationales by the libruls and their captive journolists?

You guys are either educated in the IV league, have incredibly short memories, or no attention span.

We stopped in 2009 somewhat arbitrarily, because people noticed bills weren’t getting through the Senate in that year. Also, there weren’t bills of the same magnitude and scale that passed the House and were held up by filibuster in the Senate in the prior four years. I am certainly open to going back and doing more research on that, however.

LOL, yeah right. As if Social Security reform wasn’t a big issue at 2006 or that people didn’t notice that bills weren’t getting through the Senate when Bush was president.

Liberal Media POS.

Maybe Klein can do some research on how Reid and Obama criticized any reform to the filibuster rule back when Bush was president.

Can’t blame the minority if the majority could not unify.

Unfortunately, while Klein’s stated intent is to defend democracy and democratic change, I think his case (and the Democrats’ case today, and the Republicans’ case in 2005) case misses the fact that our system of governance was not designed to be fast. It was not designed to be a democracy; it was designed to be a democratic republic. This is why we have a separation of powers, and why we have federalism, and why Senators were originally picked by state legislatures.

this