Why Rand shouldn't need to filibuster the debt ceiling

[jmdrake]

A lot of people seem to be getting excited by the. The liberals over a chance to smear Rand, and debt hawks itching for a fight. However, consider this. A filibuster is only needed for legislation has a chance to pass. But the last time the vote came up not a single republican in the house or the senate voted for it (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/02/debt-ceiling-vote-is-a-parade-of-partisanship/35418/).

Now republicans have a majority in the house. So the only way the debt ceiling passes is if either a significant number of current GOP house incumbents flip flop and vote for it, or if a significant number of freshmen GOP house members betray their mandate and vote for it. I don't expect the freshmen to flip. That leaves the incumbents. If they flip, they're on record. They can be taken out in 2012. There's an old saying about crossing a bridge once we get to it.

[Baptist]

I think we need make this a big issue: if you vote to raise the debt ceiling next year, you are out. Rand should just say "why would I need to filibuster it? Every Republican voted against it last time and they will next year too."

[MRoCkEd]

I think we need make this a big issue: if you vote to raise the debt ceiling next year, you are out.
Agreed! That should be the Tea Party's rallying cry to keep them honest.