Daschle Supports, Opposes Making it Easier to End Filibusters

Daschle Event and the Filibuster,” by Quentin Riggins, South Dakota Politics, 7 April 2005, http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/2005/week14/index.html#a0004225389.

Did Daschle give a campaign speech?,” by David Kranz, Sioux Falls Argus Leader, 7 April 2005, http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050407/COLUMNISTS02/50407001/1059/COLUMNISTS (from J. Michael Berg at South Dakota Politics).

Tom Daschle was my home state Senator for 18 years. Like me he is Catholic, and like me he hasn’t taken mass in years (though my excuse is just not going, while his is that he is being disciplined by his bishop for supporting infanticide). He spoke at my alma mater yesterday, and he defended keeping the filibuster requirement at 60 votes

He defended his position that the 60-vote requirement for Senate approval of federal judges be maintained. Requiring only 51 votes, he said, could lead to requiring just 51 votes to approve budget or tax bills, too.

Tom Daschle was my home state Senator for 18 years. Like me he is Catholic, and like me he hasn’t taken mass in years (though my excuse is just not going, while his is that he is being disciplined by his bishop for supporting infanticide). He spoke at my alma mater yesterday, and he supported reducing the filibuster requirement at in civil rights cases

Later it was determined that this method was not good for the legislative process so 67 votes was made the magic number that would invoke cloture and end a filibuster.

At this point Daschle torpedoed his own argument. He said in the 1960’s during George McGovern’s time in the Senate the number of votes necessary to invoke cloture was lowered from 67 votes to 60 votes. This was done because Congress didn’t want Southern Senators filibustering Civil Rights legislation. Today people want to lower the number of votes on judicial nominees to 51 votes which would leave the minority with no protection against the majority.

So Tom Daschle must not believe that tearing apart a baby nine-months from conception is a civil right matter. Or rather, it is only if the baby is outside the womb. Because though the baby is capable of the exact same sensations whether inside or outside, in one case its human and in the other its not.

Or something like that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *