The Democrats Nuclear Option

Well now I've posted three blogs today, this will be the fourth.  Interesting that the spell checker doesn't know the word "blog."  Oh well.

What I think I want to do with these is just post them.  I suppose deeply buried in searches they will sometimes show up, but unlikely to be found, let alone commented on.  Maybe that will be the best.  I want to talk and express my opinions and thereby I hope refine them, but I don't like arguments, which is all I find on the discussion areas.  Not that I shouldn't be disagreed with, but not just for the sake of disagreeing.

So here I may well end up in the blissful state of never being contradicted -- a state of ignorance perhaps but also peace.

In a couple of blogs today I got into the subject of abortion and of the relationship of morals and politics.  This was mainly because of an email I got from my rather more conservative brother had the subject on my mind.  Obamacare, it seems, is going to insist that abortifacients be covered under all insurance policies offered, whether the buyer wants it or not.  That does seem a little much and I have my doubt whether it is true.  However, I think if it is going to be a standardized group plan, the employer should not have the right to opt out of such coverage, and the individual of course is under no obligation to utilize it.  A bit unfair, though, considering how insurance works, to make everyone pay for the coverage only some will want to use.

This brings me to the topic I thought I would talk about this time, namely the Nuclear Option that the Democrats adopted, making it where a majority of the Senate can approve Presidential nominations rather than three-fifths (Supreme Court nominations excepted).  That is about as stupid a thing as I can imagine, and illustrates how both parties have come to be dominated by their extremists.

Of course the Republicans have been making life difficult for some of these nominees, because in part of their own extremist wing, but Obama has not helped with his failure to consult and take into consideration the views of at least a few Republicans.  It seems as though he wants to create this situation for political propaganda reasons.  It only takes a handful of  Republicans to approve a nomination, so when they can get none whatsoever that tells me there is something wrong with the nominee.

Now that they have changed the rule, when Republicans have control they will be under no pressure to change it back.  In the end this means that both parties when in power will not have this constraint on appointees.  To me this is a small step toward less good government.  I might have the forlorn hope that come the Republicans back to power they would undo this, but that doesn't seem to be in anyone's thoughts.  Talk about politicians have short-term selfish perspective, considering neither the long term nor the effect on the nation!

Of course at the root of this problem is the political party system anyway, and especially the rule of having party primaries rather than open primaries, which has the effect of forcing candidates to appeal to the party stalwarts (those who turn out for primaries) rather than to the entire district.  Compounding this is all the little (and sometimes not so little) ways incumbents manage to make their position as safe as possible, by limiting campaign spending (making it harder for challengers), drawing safe districts, pork spending, and all the advantages of incumbency anyway.