Skip to content

Barack Obama supports Harry Reid’s attempt at changing the filibuster: His position has apparently “evolved”

November 28, 2012

 Yesterday I wrote about Harry Reid’s “evolving” position on the filibuster–he was against the “arrogance of power” when the Republicans threatened to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees when George Bush was president before he was consumed with the “arrogance of power” now that the Democrats are in the majority. Today it is time to look at Barack Obama’s “evolving” position on the filibuster.

  Earlier today the White House announced that Barack Obama has endorsed Harry Reid’s attempt to change the filibuster rules:

The President has said many times that the American people are demanding action,” read the statement from White House Director of Communications Dan Pfeiffer. “They want to see progress, not partisan delay games. That hasn’t changed, and the President supports Majority Leader Reid’s efforts to reform the filibuster process

    According to this White House statement Barack Obama believes that the American people are tired of the gridlock so it is time to change the filibuster rules so that progress can be made.

  But of course Barack Obama didn’t always feel this way, here is what he said as a Senator when the Republicans were trying to change the filibuster rules:

The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority party chooses to end the filibuster, if they chose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse

  So there you have it, Barack Obama has “evolved” in regard to his stance on the filibuster now that his party is in the majority in the Senate, much in the same manner he “evolved” on his stance on gay marriage when it served to his political advantage. What once signaled the “end to the democratic debate” he now considers to be the best, and only, way forward. The very definition of the “arrogance of power.”

  What was once considered by Harry Reid to be the “arrogance of power” is now being supported by many of the same people–including Barack Obama–who once thought this signaled the end compromise and the silencing of the minority party. Funny now the thought process changes depending on which party holds the majority, isn’t it? The hypocrisy abounds.

16 Comments leave one →
  1. November 28, 2012 7:26 pm

    Obama and the Democrats want to put in policies that changes this country into a totalitarian regime that is fascistic and will not allow any opposition. This is the road to the destruction of the USA and all of us better get busy and write or call our senators and congressmen/women and demand they Represent We, The People and not just the Demands of Obama and his Rogue Regime.


    • November 28, 2012 7:41 pm

      They need to eliminate as much opposition as possible and we all know they subscribe to the creed of by any means necessary so it isn’t surprising they would look to tighten their grip on their power.


  2. November 28, 2012 7:55 pm

    Eliminate opposition? Huh? By requiring Senators who intend to filibuster to actually get up on their feet and perform the act, instead of just bringing business to a screeching halt by threatening to do so? This is changing the country to a totalitarian regime? Jerome, that’s among the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard!

    In fact, the threat of totalitarianism comes when a single Senator from one of our less-populous states can “place a hold” on a Presidential cabinet nomination. Yet let me point out that the nomination of Condoleeza Rice to be Secretary of State, although it generated opposition, garnered only 13 opposing votes. In fact, the President’s nomination for that office has never been rejected by the Senate in the history of this nation.

    Consider that any one of those 13 “Nay” votes could have placed a “hold” on Ms. Rice’s nomination, yet none did. That was then, this is now, and a member of the minority party has expressed her willingness to break with a tradition of more than two centuries simply to demonstrate beyond all doubt that hers is a party of whiny crybabies who cannot believe that they actually lost an election.

    Take good care and may God bless us all!



    • LD Jackson permalink
      November 28, 2012 10:17 pm

      Somehow, I fail to see the comparison between Condi Rice and Susan Rice. Keep in mind that the latter Rice has lied to the American people, at the bequest of her boss. Placing a hold on her nomination has nothing to do with who won the election. Instead, it is a legitimate response to a President who is thinking about nominating a woman who is wholly unqualified to be Secretary of State. The only thing I can think of that is more ridiculous is the idea that he may also nominate John Kerry as Defense Secretary.


    • November 28, 2012 10:25 pm

      If I were a member of the majority party I would have to attack you and call you a sexist for opposing my Senator because she is a woman. But because I am not I will say that Rice’s potential nomination is toxic because of the role Obama had her play in the Benghazi cover up, there is actually a reason why people think it would be a mistake to nominate her, including Kirsten Powers who is no member of the whiny crybaby party.


  3. bunkerville permalink
    November 28, 2012 8:17 pm

    We still have the HOUSE!! Other than appointments, we control the dough, and even if the senate makes changes to bills, it has to come back around. This is not to disagree with you. Fox just played videos of Obama Reid and several others who were opposed previously. But I just wish the House would start acting like adults. Why is the senste negotiating. It is the House that controls the budget and the cliff. Boehner, well, that is another story isn’t it.


    • November 28, 2012 10:29 pm

      I expect Boehner to cave, he did the last time around when he gave Obama everything he wanted in the grand deal, and because of this Obama came back and asked for more instead of accepting the fact Boehner gave him everything he wanted. Once he saw Boehner was weak he tried to get even more and I expect the same this time around.


  4. November 28, 2012 9:23 pm

    Obama said americans are demanding action? Really? That can’t be true. If it is, why did they vote to reelect him? He only knows how to do one thing; spend your money.


    • November 28, 2012 10:30 pm

      Spending money is the action a majority of Americans have decided is the best course of action I suppose


      • November 29, 2012 7:50 pm

        Only if you’re talking about DEAD Americans Steve. Between dead voters, illegal alien voters, multi-time voters, and vote counting machines that read “Romney” as “Obama”, its a wonder the election was even close. Oh, yes, I almost forgot, throw in a whole bunch of our service members that weren’t even given the chance to vote because of the ineptitude of people responsible for getting them their absentee ballots on time–you KNOW who most of those votes would have been for. The one group of Americans who have more right to vote than ANY ONE ELSE, and they were conveniently left out.

        Was this election stolen? You God Damned right it was! Where is the public outcry?


      • November 29, 2012 8:07 pm

        The fact that even one person in the military wasn’t able to vote sickens me! These people deserve the vote more than anyone else and to think they were disenfranchised is despicable!


    • November 29, 2012 1:07 am

      You might have something there Jim. If the polls are any indicator Americans don’t trust Washington at all. Maybe they just wanted somebody they thought would get nothing done. The “if they can’t do anything they can’t break anything” philosophy. Unfortunately I think the majority of Americans have no idea how much the Obama regime has accomplished.


  5. MaddMedic permalink
    November 28, 2012 10:06 pm

    Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word… and commented:
    One way or another. By whatever means they can, they are going to eff us all and the sheeple are so ignorant.!!


  6. MaddMedic permalink
    November 28, 2012 10:07 pm

    Lock and load…


  7. lou222 permalink
    November 29, 2012 7:53 am

    I guess I am about to the point that I don’t trust either party,with the exception of a few of the “new” Republicans that are in there. As for Harry Reid, yes he is vicious and evil and attacks harder than the Republicans, but both side pull rank whenever they feel they can get away with it,it has been going on since the beginning. It is called “politics” for a reason, I guess. Now, in regards to Susan Rice, how much did we even hear about her until Benghazi came about? I heard very little, so tell me if you had heard otherwise. To me, she is just a little mousy non-entity that got rewarded with a position for unknown reasons. Now there is alot coming out about her, so I think that she needs to be vetted. I doubt that will be very likely, however.Then she comes out and lies, yes lies about what happened, so I don’t feel like she is a good candidate for the new position. She follows orders well, but, what I want it someone that tells us the truth, guess that is something this administration has a problem with doing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: