Unfortunately, the Dems don’t have the votes to do away with it, and even if they did, look how spineless they are. I’m not holding my breath. Matt Yglesias is particularly great on this subject, if you’re interested.

As to the larger theme of appointees: it seemed to me, at the time, that Obama chose Sotomayor a. because she’s Latina; b. because she’s smart; and c. because it seemed more prudent for him to appoint a moderate as his first SCOTUS appointment and then try to get more liberal nominees confirmed for subsequent openings than the reverse. Someone like Tribe or Diane Wood or Kathleen Sullivan would have had a messy, protracted fight that would have distracted from HCR (look what good it did!) and likely wouldn’t have gotten through anyway. I’d love a real liberal Justice, but that just doesn’t seem likely.

First, I should make a quick correction. When I wrote “I don’t know who Karl Keller is or anything about him” I should have written “I don’t CARE who Karl Keller is or anything about him.” This isn’t about you, Mr. Keller, although you seem intent on making it about me.

Anyway. I think we all have better things to do than name-call, so let’s get down to business.

Mr. Keller’s objections to my critique seem to be threefold:

1. That I admire Barack Obama because he is clever with words, but willfully ignore his hypocrisy.

2. That I engage in demagoguery by calling the Republicans a “Party of ‘No’” even though my “vapid slogan” also applies to the Democrats’ unwillingness to accede to Republican policies.

3. That I don’t understand basic historical documents, and if I had understood correctly I would not deign to question the Founders.

I hope this is an accurate characterization of Mr. Keller’s complaints. I would respond thusly:

1.) If you believe that hypocrisy is an unforgivable political sin, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. It goes to the Moon. In all seriousness, I think this is really weak sauce. Everyone sees their political opponent as a hypocrite; rarely does it have any substantive effect on policy.

But for what it’s worth: a.) health care is not yet dead, so this is all a bit premature; b.) the President did not “subcontract legislation to Harry Reid” — it’s Congress’ JOB to write legislation, not the President’s; c.) it’s minor, but the giveaways to LA and NE are being stripped out of the bill; and most importantly d.) Mr. Keller’s complaint doesn’t address or in any way effectively critique anything I wrote. If he wants to accuse me of hero worship, he should say that. If he wants to make a point about Obama’s handling of health care reform, he should say that. If he wants to assert that Democratic policies are bad for the country, he should say that. But instead he seems to be trying to argue that I admire Barack Obama because, like me, he’s somewhat good with words, but really this is just a way for us to cover our hypocrisy. Which, okay, yeah, Obama has changed course on many things, as is his wont, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the current health care plan is considerably MORE CONSERVATIVE than the one he campaigned on. Shouldn’t I, the obeisant liberal, be the one complaining about hypocrisy? Which reminds me…

2. I’m accused of demagoguery for using the “meaningless” “Party of ‘No’” “slogan.” You really have got to be kidding me with this. For one thing, slogan or not, it is far from “meaningless.” I spelled out the meaning quite clearly in this very post, and Mr. Keller seems to agree: “In your weak definition, they are saying NO! to the ideas of YOUR side.” Now, I don’t know what’s “weak” about a literal definition, but yes, exactly: they are saying NO! to the ideas of my side. Because my side won, and thus we get to write legislation. That’s how democracy works. Mr. Keller has every right to disagree with the POLICIES of “my side” — I disagree with some too; they’re not liberal enough for me — but that doesn’t mean the President, or the Democrats in Congress, have to give into anything they DISAGREE with.

Like or not, Mr. Keller, the Democrats are in power. The Congressional Republicans, if they are interested in reforming our health care system (which they claim to be but are plainly not) have to negotiate on the plan written by the majority. My point was that GOP legislators are not negotiating: they are engaging in strategic rejectionism in the hopes of killing reform. They may well succeed! But Mr. Keller seems to expect the Democrats to give away the farm to avoid this. Republican intransigence does not, I hate to tell you, lead to the actual enactment of Republican policies. It leads to no reform at all. So there couldn’t be a more “vapid” statement than “They are the party of NO freedom of choice, insisting as they do in the monstrosity of the health care bill that everyone is mandated to have insurance coverage.” The mandate is part of their plan! I hate to split an infinitive, but saying that the Democrats are the “Party of NO” for objecting to NOT having a mandate (without which, by the way, there’s no point to insurance competition across state lines) is a pretty surreal way to argue. I think it’s pretty clear who’s engaging in demagoguery here: the person who is not me.

3. Finally, the Senate stuff. What really rankles is the censorship. How dare I so much as SUGGEST the abolition of the Senate! Look: I’m not all that invested in this. I recognize that the Senate isn’t going anywhere, and we’d all be better served to find practicable solutions to legislative gridlock. But I’m sorry to say, Mr. Keller, that the Senate is not sacrosanct, and that big long quote and your cherry-picked emphases in it do nothing to prove that it is. First, what you neglect to notice is that the author couches your quote with mine; in other words, Madison (or Hamilton, or both — no one is sure) explained in Federalist No. 62 that the inclusion of a Senate reflects a political imperative, not a philosophical necessity (my quote)…and then he went on to justify it (your quote and then some). There was no universal consensus among the founders that it was philosophically necessary. Madison’s Virgina Plan had no equal representation in the Congress, nor did the draft of a plan Hamilton wrote but never formally offered. Also, let’s note that the following sentence appears in your selection: “It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger.” In other words: this shit ain’t perfect. Which, wouldn’t you know, is what I’ve been saying this whole time. Lastly, I find it far-fetched that even you believe the phrase “excess of law-making” refers to the LENGTH of bills. That tired trope needs to go away. If you disagree with legislation, say so, but don’t try to hide your lack of argument in a sad complaint about the number of pages. The American health care system, like many things, is very complicated. There is nothing serious about claiming that major legislation ought to be concise.

In fact, there’s nothing serious about any of this. Color me shocked. Mr. Keller continues to avoid the substance of my arguments, instead trying to push his own politics by attacking me and my silly “parsing of words.” The condescension would be maddening if it weren’t so pathetic.

In short, the Democrats don’t gain anything, or very much, by retaining the ability to block the Republicans by means of the filibuster (or its threat) when the Democrats are in the minority, but the Republicans wield that power for all its worth. I say: to hell with the filibuster.

You?

Meanwhile, you are an halfway decent parser of words, Mr. Rosenberg, which is probably why you admire Barack Obama so much — he’s man who can parse words with the best of them, even though we can never sure if he means any of them since he winds up reversing his position on so much of what he says.

Of course, when the words come back to bite him, like the hollow promise to broadcast health-cared negotiations on C-SPAN for everyone to see, and then he subcontracts out legislation to Harry Reid and backroom deals get cut with Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson — well, parsing can only take you so far until your own hypocrisy comes up and bites you in in the behind.

Meanwhile, it’s at least honest on your part when you say Republicans are the “party of no” because, in your weak definition, they are saying NO! to the ideas of YOUR side. But at that point of your word parsing, the phrase just becomes a meaningless piece of demagoguery, a vapid slogan.

By your definition, the Democrats then are also the “Party of No.”

They are the party of NO insurance company competition across state lines.

They are the party of NO tort reform so as to help eliminate the costly practice of defensive medicine.

They are the party of NO freedom of choice, insisting as they do in the monstrosity of the health care bill that everyone is mandated to have insurance coverage.

I could go on, but you get the idea…I think.

Finally, alas, you can quote from the Federalist Papers, but you don’t understand them.

THIS is the money quote in Federalist 62, where Madison (and Hamilton don’t forget) justify each state having in the Senate equal representation (what they call in this passage “the ingredient.” Emphasis mine:

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.

And boy, if there’s is anything that embodies diseased “excesses of lawmaking” it’s the 2000 page monstrosity of a health care reform bill with its panoply of taxes, mandates and 118 new bureaucratic commissions and panels and what not.

Alas, unlike YOU, the Founders thought the Senate essential and would be horrified if it were to be abolished, which is what YOU called for, remember.

That you (a) buy into a meaningless “Party of No” slogan and (b) would even entertain the idea of abolishing the Senate proves pretty conclusively that, at this point in your young blogging career, you are not a serious thinker.