If healthcare reform was popular, Democrats could revoke the filibuster rule, pass the legislation and be applauded for it. But if reform was popular there would be no need to revoke the filibuster rule in the first place, because Republicans would not dare to use it the way they have.
Everything the Democrats say about the Republican use of the filibuster is correct, except for that one awkward detail: most of the public does not like the Democrats’ proposals and wants them blocked. If Democrats change the rules to press on, they will be outmanoeuvring not just the Republicans but the country. The constitutional case for doing it might be impeccable. In my view, it is. But the party fears the price it would have to pay in November’s elections – and so it should.
Hmm. This would be true assuming that health reform wasn't popular from the outset of the process. But if health reform was unpopular because Americans perceived it as a set of quiet deals to placate enough Senate Democrats to get 60 votes, then Crook's reasoning would be circular. "If reform was popular there would be no need to revoke the filibuster rule in the first place." But maybe reform is unpopular as a result of the filibuster being invoked (because, again, it results in Harry Reid scrambling to cut shady deals with the last few Democratic holdouts). If that were the case, his argument would amount to this: health care reform is unpopular because of the filibuster, but if it was popular, there would be no need for the filibuster.
I'm going to go ahead and assert as a premise that health care reform is unpopular, largely (though not solely), due to the problems caused by the filibuster. Therefore, Crook's argument is circular.
No comments:
Post a Comment