I think what’s happened is that over time people have grown increasingly aware of the absurdities of the Senate, and the senators’ insistence on hiding behind them, so some bluffs are being called.
If Dems say they support a pathway to citizenship…

…but can only do two filibuster-proof bills a year...

...and those are only for taxes...

...unless @VP says otherwise...

...and we’ll probably lose power in two years...

...what do you think advocates are gonna demand?
One reason I’m thrilled to see filibuster abolition go mainstream, and which I’ve been bleating about for 15 years, is that as constituted it inverts accountability. When a bill fails in “the Senate” it’s usually because of the minority, not the party in charge. LIKEWISE...
As constituted, the filibuster allows an out party to say ‘vote us in, we support X, Y, and Z’ *even when they know they aren’t unified around those things*. Because they know the filibuster will prevent them from becoming law.
That worked until filibuster reform went mainstream! What’s happening now is that too many people have come to understand that the rules are mostly artifice, and so if promises go unfulfilled it means they were just empty to begin with.
Needless to say that’s a catastrophe for a majority party that promises a lot of things that require new legislation. Now you gotta keep ‘em!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Brian Beutler

Brian Beutler Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @brianbeutler

13 Feb
Absolutely pathetic. The Raskin proposal was one hour Zoom depositions and document subpoenas. That should be the baseline for negotiations and Coons should resign to let someone who isn’t a complete coward serve his constituents.
Get Romney in there, come up with some cap on the number of witnesses, divided between both sides, final call on witness relevance goes to the whole Senate, that’s the agreement. Just keep Chris Coons as far away from negotiations as possible.
What a horrendous failure this would be, and it’ll be entirely on Democrats. With the opposition cornered and in a blind panic, they will...call the whole thing off? Total betrayal.
Read 4 tweets
12 Feb
Seriously, how can you go straight to a vote with all this low-hanging fruit unplucked?!
You can even say, we didn’t intend to call witnesses, but the Trump’s team dishonest presentation leaves you no choice.
There isn’t as much honor as it might seem there is in leaving it half on the field
Read 5 tweets
10 Feb
If Trump were really hard at work in the White House trying to stop the insurrection and not, say, laughing his ass off in front of one of his many televisions, wouldn’t @JoeBiden now have total control over the exculpating proof?
Extremely fake curious that Trump’s lawyers aren’t asking President Biden to release all evidence in his control that shows Trump scrambling to restore peace and definitely not watching television and laughing and refusing to help.
THIS would actually be a good question for the WH daily briefing RE Biden’s arm’s-length approach to impeachment: is he in control of any evidence that bears on claims the managers or Trump’s counsel have made, and if so, doesn’t he have an obligation to come forward with it?
Read 4 tweets
9 Feb
Taking bets now on which manager will say what thing that certain Republicans pretend made them so mad that they can’t possibly vote to convict anymore, a theatrical maneuver known to many as The Susan.
I wondered this as well! A good guess. But typically a senator will deploy The Susan only after a dilatory period during which he or she pretends to be open-minded about and impressed with the opposing party’s case.
Read 6 tweets
25 Jan
A strategy optimized to get an insufficient number of moderates dug in on a worse bill, such that when it becomes clear Republicans are fucking around and there’s no way in hell there’ll be 60 votes for anything, there also won’t be 50 votes except maybe for the worse bill.
There’s no reason for this. Get the process moving quickly on the popular bill you want, make clear it’s the only ship sailing and it’ll pass with 50 votes. Maybe that entices some Republicans to throw in with the winning side. More likely it doesn’t, but if it doesn’t, so what?
Truly insane they’re going to do the same thing they did last trifecta, down to the same Lucy and same football.
Read 5 tweets
23 Jan
Three thoughts recurred reading this.

1. The theory that ex-presidents can’t be tried by the Senate is fake, conjured in bad faith to give GOP sens cover to acquit without stating the truth: they’re OK with the right using violence to subvert democracy.
2. If and when Republicans acquit Trump on false pretext, Democrats must pivot immediately to a measure disqualifying insurrectionists from office under the 14th amendment—they might even warn Republicans that they’ll face this vote before the trial ends. nytimes.com/2021/01/12/opi…
3. This whole saga is an object lesson in the pitfalls of timidity and foot dragging. The original sin here was recessing the House in the hope of turning the page instead instead of voting on the impeachment within hours of the insurrection.
Read 16 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!