Does anyone else really hate this election?

[A dog on every car, a car in every elevator]

What I particularly dislike is the argument that since the Congressional lawmaking process's byzantine structure and surplus of veto points make it unreasonable to expect more major change to take place within that process, the right thing to do is to enthusiastically support a party and president that devote all their energy to trying to change things within that same process and basically none to changing it.

Yes, exactly this. Great post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/17/harry-reid-promises-filibuster-reform-if-dems-win-the-election/

[State Comptroller Atkins]

From what I've read about the 2000 campaign, it wasn't really that exciting, despite the outcome being very much in doubt. Of course the same thing can't be said of the actual results and their aftermath.

[Yelnoc]

What I particularly dislike is the argument that since the Congressional lawmaking process's byzantine structure and surplus of veto points make it unreasonable to expect more major change to take place within that process, the right thing to do is to enthusiastically support a party and president that devote all their energy to trying to change things within that same process and basically none to changing it.

Yes, exactly this. Great post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/17/harry-reid-promises-filibuster-reform-if-dems-win-the-election/

What will stop the Republicans from filibustering that?

[WhyteRain]

What I particularly dislike is the argument that since the Congressional lawmaking process's byzantine structure and surplus of veto points make it unreasonable to expect more major change to take place within that process, the right thing to do is to enthusiastically support a party and president that devote all their energy to trying to change things within that same process and basically none to changing it.

Yes, exactly this. Great post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/17/harry-reid-promises-filibuster-reform-if-dems-win-the-election/

Ezra Klein is the ringleader of JournoList.  Why don't you cite some MSM 1%er with more credibility -- like Brian Ross?

As to the substance, this just shows how desperate is Harry Reid.  He never wanted to "reform" the filibuster.  He just helped kill reform of it a couple of years ago.  He's just claiming now that he wants to as part of his begging the voters to keep him as Senate Majority leader:  "It's never happened before -- in fact the current filibuster rules were written almost entirely by us Democrats** -- but really, this time, honest-Injun, Democrats are gonna reform!" 

There are probably a few sub-100 IQs who will believe him.

** See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

[Torie]

What I particularly dislike is the argument that since the Congressional lawmaking process's byzantine structure and surplus of veto points make it unreasonable to expect more major change to take place within that process, the right thing to do is to enthusiastically support a party and president that devote all their energy to trying to change things within that same process and basically none to changing it.

Yes, exactly this. Great post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/17/harry-reid-promises-filibuster-reform-if-dems-win-the-election/

The "reforms" Reid wants will accomplish exactly nothing vis a vis the filibuster. In the end, there will be one filibuster vote on every substantive bill. It is just pre substantive procedural filibusters that he wants to kill off. I have a post about it somewhere.

[A dog on every car, a car in every elevator]

What I particularly dislike is the argument that since the Congressional lawmaking process's byzantine structure and surplus of veto points make it unreasonable to expect more major change to take place within that process, the right thing to do is to enthusiastically support a party and president that devote all their energy to trying to change things within that same process and basically none to changing it.

Yes, exactly this. Great post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/17/harry-reid-promises-filibuster-reform-if-dems-win-the-election/

The "reforms" Reid wants will accomplish exactly nothing vis a vis the filibuster. In the end, there will be one filibuster vote on every substantive bill. It is just pre substantive procedural filibusters that he wants to kill off. I have a post about it somewhere.

Best he can do is force the minority to filibuster the old-fashioned way I think.

What will stop the Republicans from filibustering that?

I think only thing he'd have power to do is a procedural change.  Probably limited in what it'd translate to but Great Pumpkin is wrong to portray Democrats as uninterested in changing senate procedure.  But doing so could also backfire and allow more rapid change to the right like allowing RyanCare to pass if Romney wins and the GOP takes the Senate.

[Yelnoc]

What I particularly dislike is the argument that since the Congressional lawmaking process's byzantine structure and surplus of veto points make it unreasonable to expect more major change to take place within that process, the right thing to do is to enthusiastically support a party and president that devote all their energy to trying to change things within that same process and basically none to changing it.

Yes, exactly this. Great post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/17/harry-reid-promises-filibuster-reform-if-dems-win-the-election/

The "reforms" Reid wants will accomplish exactly nothing vis a vis the filibuster. In the end, there will be one filibuster vote on every substantive bill. It is just pre substantive procedural filibusters that he wants to kill off. I have a post about it somewhere.

Best he can do is force the minority to filibuster the old-fashioned way I think.

What will stop the Republicans from filibustering that?

I think only thing he'd have power to do is a procedural change.  Probably limited in what it'd translate to but Great Pumpkin is wrong to portray Democrats as uninterested in changing senate procedure.  But doing so could also backfire and allow more rapid change to the right like allowing RyanCare to pass if Romney wins and the GOP takes the Senate.

But I thought procedural changes still had to go to a floor vote.  And even if the procedural vote cannot be used, I could see a Republican in safe state reading War and Peace like a classical filibuster to prevent a change this big.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Worst election I've been around for. Second worst was 2008. Ugh. What a crappy election that was.

[Jack Vance RIP]

Your question reminds me of something that happened in undergraduate school, in a class called "European Intellectual History".  The professor was a great one (so, naturally, he didn't get tenure), but one day in class -- a class of about 35 students -- he said "Americans are anti-intellectual".  I quickly shot back, "That's because intellectuals are anti-American".  He stopped, stunned, then after standing there thinking about it for a minute, admitted I was right.

The fish I caught the other day was twenty foot long.

So you're calling me a liar?  OK, that's ... deep thinking for you.

It requires no depth from anyone to see through that story... Again, better trolls please.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Your question reminds me of something that happened in undergraduate school, in a class called "European Intellectual History".  The professor was a great one (so, naturally, he didn't get tenure), but one day in class -- a class of about 35 students -- he said "Americans are anti-intellectual".  I quickly shot back, "That's because intellectuals are anti-American".  He stopped, stunned, then after standing there thinking about it for a minute, admitted I was right.

The fish I caught the other day was twenty foot long.

So you're calling me a liar?  OK, that's ... deep thinking for you.

It requires no depth from anyone to see through that story... Again, better trolls please.

If true, it would explain why the professor didn't get tenure, since the anecdote demonstrates a ridiculously facile and timid understanding of the universe all around.

[WhyteRain]

I've noted that the people most likely to have those "Question Authority" stickers on their bumpers are also the least likely to do it.

They're the kids who sat up in front of the classes and when the professor entered, straightened themselves in their chairs and smiled:

"We're all in our places with bright shining faces!"
"Tell us what we need for the test and we'll forget about the rest!"

To put it mildly, I wasn't among their number.

The same little turds are the ones most likely to disbelieve that anyone else ever did whatever they were too afraid to dare.

[Foucaulf]

I imagine Whyterain's fellow students all hated him afterwards for sucking up a minute of lecture time.

This whole back-and-forth raises more questions. He's on the same educational level as most politicians, and is very rhetorical (though the IQ disses should take a rest). And I don't get what he means by "Law school-trained rhetoric" if he's gone through the same ordeal as well.

His arrogance is obvious, and beyond his spiel about intelligence a page back passes judgement like no tomorrow. Does Whyterain think he's better just because his arrogance is explicit and not implicit?

[Jack Vance RIP]

I've noted that the people most likely to have those "Question Authority" stickers on their bumpers are also the least likely to do it.

They're the kids who sat up in front of the classes and when the professor entered, straightened themselves in their chairs and smiled:

"We're all in our places with bright shining faces!"
"Tell us what we need for the test and we'll forget about the rest!"

To put it mildly, I wasn't among their number.

The same little turds are the ones most likely to disbelieve that anyone else ever did whatever they were too afraid to dare.

Boring old right-wing attack memes are boring and old.

No doubt though had those 'little turds' really questioned authority they would have ended up with the exact same opinions as one WhyteRain, arbiter of intellectual discourse everywhere. His wisdom is truly sensational.

[SPC]

The Republican primaries (specifically the debates) had to be one of the most entertaining comedy shows in television history. Unfortunately, the general election has not lived up to this, being essentially a remake of 2004 with the names of the characters and parties changed.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I've noted that the people most likely to have those "Question Authority" stickers on their bumpers are also the least likely to do it.

They're the kids who sat up in front of the classes and when the professor entered, straightened themselves in their chairs and smiled:

"We're all in our places with bright shining faces!"
"Tell us what we need for the test and we'll forget about the rest!"

To put it mildly, I wasn't among their number.

The same little turds are the ones most likely to disbelieve that anyone else ever did whatever they were too afraid to dare.

Academic authority at the university level often concerns itself with questioning other types of authority, bro. It's kind of what it's known for in the current civilization.

[Sibboleth]

So you're calling me a liar?

Perhaps, though I think fabulist is a more fitting word in this context.

[Progressive Realist]

It's hilarious to see a Republican feign outrage over "elitism."

[WhyteRain]

I imagine Whyterain's fellow students all hated him afterwards for sucking up a minute of lecture time.

Feel better for saying that?

This whole back-and-forth raises more questions.

But then you ask as single one.  Interesting.  Well, I suppose I will then.

He's on the same educational level as most politicians, and is very rhetorical (though the IQ disses should take a rest).

And what educational level would you put yourself on?

And I don't get what he means by "Law school-trained rhetoric" if he's gone through the same ordeal as well.

Why are you confused?  I don't like flowery rhetoric that's used to mislead ordinary people.  

His arrogance is obvious, and beyond his spiel about intelligence a page back passes judgement like no tomorrow.

What does this mean?  

Does Whyterain think he's better just because his arrogance is explicit and not implicit?

Do people who speak humbly but behave arrogantly think they are better than people who do the opposite?

[WhyteRain]

I've noted that the people most likely to have those "Question Authority" stickers on their bumpers are also the least likely to do it.

They're the kids who sat up in front of the classes and when the professor entered, straightened themselves in their chairs and smiled:

"We're all in our places with bright shining faces!"
"Tell us what we need for the test and we'll forget about the rest!"

To put it mildly, I wasn't among their number.

The same little turds are the ones most likely to disbelieve that anyone else ever did whatever they were too afraid to dare.

Boring old right-wing attack memes are boring and old.

No doubt though had those 'little turds' really questioned authority they would have ended up with the exact same opinions as one WhyteRain, arbiter of intellectual discourse everywhere. His wisdom is truly sensational.

Where have I tried to be an "arbiter of intellectual discourse" for anyone but myself?  (Perhaps sometimes an "arbiter of facts" but as they say, everyone's entitled to his own opinion but no one's entitled to his own facts.)

[WhyteRain]

I've noted that the people most likely to have those "Question Authority" stickers on their bumpers are also the least likely to do it.

They're the kids who sat up in front of the classes and when the professor entered, straightened themselves in their chairs and smiled:

"We're all in our places with bright shining faces!"
"Tell us what we need for the test and we'll forget about the rest!"

To put it mildly, I wasn't among their number.

The same little turds are the ones most likely to disbelieve that anyone else ever did whatever they were too afraid to dare.

Academic authority at the university level often concerns itself with questioning other types of authority, bro.

Really -- what kinds of questioning is it that academic authority is supposed to do?  (Not being an academician, I really don't know.  Hate to sound arrogant about it.)  And shouldn't outsiders be able to question academic authority?

[WhyteRain]

It's hilarious to see a Republican feign outrage over "elitism."

This is a good example of the lack of attentiveness and reasoning abilities that do tend to irritate me.  I can have no good response to this.

[stegosaurus]

Barack Obama is a mediocre President blessed with the luxury of a completely inept, unsaleable opponent; this is a formula for ugly, disengaging politics. This election long ago devolved into a TMZ caliber media war and it's better for my mental well being to only follow passively.