Paul Krugman Has Convinced This Libertarian to Vote Republican in the Next Election
Paul Krugman in the NY Times, Via Todd Zwycki
The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government. Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session.
Don't hold your breath. As it is, Democrats don't even seem able to score political points by highlighting their opponents' obstructionism.
It should be a simple message (and it should have been the central message in Massachusetts): a vote for a Republican, no matter what you think of him as a person, is a vote for paralysis.
OK, sign me up.
Greg:
Yeah, I think he lined up a few more Republican votes with that one, assuming that anyone other than you reads his stuff. ;)
February 9, 2010, 2:15 pmMaddog:
This classical liberal is also suddenly Republican under the Krugman plan. Sheesh and I dislike them nearly as much as I dislike Krugman.
February 9, 2010, 3:15 pmRon H.:
Oh Wow! If it were only that easy.
February 9, 2010, 3:34 pmArtD0dger:
I can vote for paralysis? Sign me up.
February 9, 2010, 3:51 pmastonerii:
An inactive government is a good government. An inactive and unobtrusive government is the best government.
February 9, 2010, 3:57 pmMesa Econoguy:
Now if only we could vote Krugman off the island….
[or at least vote him to shut the hell up]
February 9, 2010, 5:32 pmJames H:
I think that he is mistaken about a winning strategy in Massachusetts. I think the vote there pretty much confirmed that the voters would prefer paralysis. I think that most of the voters that swung from the normal Democrat candidate did so for the simple purpose of preserving the power of the filibuster. It's supposed to be difficult to pass laws. Legislation should be the last resort and have broad support.
February 9, 2010, 5:53 pmDan_D:
Gridlock is a good thing ;-) The ones calling for this seem to think that they will always be in the majority. Just watch them scream if they were to vote to eliminate the filibuster, then become the minority party.
February 9, 2010, 7:42 pmJeffrey Ellis:
Yeah, we could use some paralysis right about now. Or more snow on the east coast.
February 9, 2010, 8:28 pmIgotBupkis:
> It should be a simple message (and it should have been the central message in Massachusetts): a vote for a Republican, no matter what you think of him as a person, is a vote for paralysis.
Whereas a vote for a Democrat, no matter what you think of them as a person, is a vote for damnfoolishness and insanity.
Yaaay, paralysis.
February 9, 2010, 10:58 pmMark:
The basic lie in the entire piece cannot convince you? The Democrats had, before the election of Scott Brown, a majority that could not be obstructed by the minority party. All the obstructions in Obama's first year were created by their own party. That they can lie and claim otherwise is more telling than anything else.
February 10, 2010, 10:21 amDoug:
LOL! Way back in 2005, when the Republicans held the Senate majority, there was talks of circumventing fillibusters, which the press derisively called "the nuclear option." The idea was to get some votes on judges through the Senate, which the democrats had been holding up for years. The Democrats wailed that it was the end of civilization as we know it. Then the Gang Of Fourteen (which included McCain) stepped forward to avoid "disaster" (spoken with stern look on face).
Robert Byrd in 2005: "For the temporary gain of a handful of out-of-the-mainstream judges, some in the Senate are ready to callously incinerate each senator's right of extended debate."
Robert Byrd from hospital bed in 2010: "I don't know how to be any more clear. USE THE NUCLEAR OPTION,
Abolish the filibuster, and PASS SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE NOW."
What a bunch of dorks.
February 10, 2010, 4:28 pmVangel:
What the US needs is to go back to the old system when Senators were appointed by the states. That would ensure that the concentration of power in Washington was diminished and that the federal grab for power that rightfully belongs to the states and individuals will be reversed. Even better would be the realization by the states that they can nullify federal laws and rulings by the Supreme Court, which is favours expansion of federal power because judges are appointed by the Office of the President, which favours an expansion of federal power.
February 10, 2010, 7:45 pmCB:
interesting how short-term political motives seek change rule of law -- now considering the shucking off of my libertarian leanings for anarchy
...anyways, Vangel's suggestion would be a vast improvement.
February 12, 2010, 7:46 pm