It's back...

The New York Fishwrap's Gail Collins says (my emphases and comments added):

Normally, a senator who’s feeling testy will just put a hold on one presidential nomination as Jim Bunning of Kentucky did last year when he stopped action on the confirmation of a deputy U.S. trade representative because he was upset that the Canadian Parliament was considering a bill to ban the sale of cigarettes with candy flavorings. … [or as did] Christopher Bond of Missouri [in placing] a hold on the nomination of Martha Johnson to be the leader of the General Services Administration since last summer because he was ticked off with the G.S.A. over construction of a new federal building in Kansas City.

. . . .

That was a normal Senate procedure. Now Shelby has upped the ante with a blanket hold on everybody. His incredibly grave reasons were the desire to see that a defense contract for a new tanker is awarded to a bidder who will do the assembly work in Alabama. Also, he feels that a new F.B.I. facility for testing explosive devices should be conveniently located in Huntsville. [The rat wants more pork.]

. . . .

People, can’t we have a citizen revolt over this? [There is already one in progress, but Collins and her colleagues have spent the last year alternately ignoring them and deriding them as "teabaggers." Oh, wait: my mistake. I just assumed that Collins understands what "this" is, but apparently not:] It’s all about the filibuster rule. [No, it is not. It is about abuse of the filibuster. No one would say that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre showed that chainsaws should be banned; like a chainsaw, the filibuster is a valuable and important tool which can be abused. Shelby's disgraceful misbehavior shows only the propensity of fallen humanity toward self-serving and rent-seeking behaviors, not any defect in the system itself. To be sure, systems should be designed to harness this propensity, which is the genius of our Constitution: instead of trying to fight human ambition, or worse yet pretending that it doesn't exist, the Consitution pits—as Madison put it—ambition against ambition. Nevertheless, any system created will be abused, and this potential is not an independently sufficient reason to change a system that works.] The Obama administration is hamstrung because the Senate now requires 60 votes to get anything done, from health care reform to the confirmation of the woman who’s going to oversee building maintenance. [Note the clutch of claims here, all wrong: that American government is designed to smoothly convey a President's agenda into law, that succesful Senate resistance to the U.S. and White Houses is therefore pathological, and that the present situation is novel, not only in degree but kind. All of this is done for the purpose of framing the foolish action Collins is about to suggest—using lamppost journalism—as not only a boon, but as necessary to restore of a mythical status quo ante]

. . . .

“It’s beyond the breaking point,” said Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, who plans to introduce a bill to eliminate the filibuster next week. [Told you.] There is a stupendous lack of real enthusiasm in the Senate for doing anything as dramatic as eliminating the senators’ right to stop things. [Another thing we owe to enlightened self-interest.] Some experts think Joe Biden, as presiding officer, could get rid of the filibuster by issuing a ruling when a new Congress assembles next January. [The "nuclear option"? Not this again!] The vice president’s office indicated that Biden would be happy to get going on that project the very second hell freezes over. Which is about the same time the Senate is going to take up Harkin’s bill.

“But I’m hoping we can get enough people interested in this that it becomes an election issue. In Senate races this year, people ought to be asked,” Harkin said. [Which in this context is a constitutive statement. Harkin certainly believes this, but his role in this article—this is lamppost journalism 101, folks—is as Collins' sockpuppet. This quote isn't a report on a Senator's aspirations, it's an attempt to drum up interest and create an election issue.]

Harkin has been introducing the same bill since 1995, through lean years and fat for his own party. [As Emerson put it, in that long-suffering and much-abused quote, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."] When his fellow Democrats were in the minority during the Bush years, they were, of course, a lot fonder of the filibuster than they are now. [Now there's an understatement. As Paul pointed out in the comments of my last Shelby post, some of those who now fret about the filibuster held quite different views once-upon-a-convenience ago.]

Back then, it was Republicans who demanded change. [Those who demanded change were Republicans, but some of us cried foul, as my post linked above (s.v. "the nuclear option? not again!") shows.] “Far too many of the president’s nominees were never afforded an up or down vote because several Democrats chose to block the process for political gain,” complained — um — Richard Shelby. [Ah: so not only is he a corrupt little toe-rag, he's a hypocritical corrupt little toerag.]

Oh, enough of this. Let's have some more Elgar: