THE POLITICS IS AS USUAL...:

Five, Four, Three, Two... (Charlie Cook, May 17, 2005, National Journal)

The argument over whether Senate Rule XXII, which governs filibusters, or for that matter any other Senate rule, can be changed by a simple majority upholding a ruling from the chair is not new. This fight first began in 1967 over civil rights. Then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey was in the Senate president's chair, but he did not have the votes to pull off a rules change in the end.

Other skirmishes occurred over the next dozen years that ultimately resulted in changing the number of votes necessary to invoke cloture, or limit debate, from two-thirds of those present and voting to a simple three-fifths of the total Senate membership.

So if this fight over changing Senate rules and procedures through majority votes is not new, then what is different about this go-around? It's simple: There has never been a minority party so intent on retaliating if the rules are changed.

...only the petulance and pettiness is new.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 17, 2005 12:50 PM