Newsletter Subject

Rand Paul's Resistance

From

bloombergview.com

Email Address

noreply@mail.bloombergview.com

Sent On

Fri, Feb 9, 2018 03:35 PM

Email Preheader Text

The Senate was in the spotlight Thursday, and it sure didn't look good. Granted, credit is due to Mi

[BloombergView]( [Early Returns]( Jonathan Bernstein]( The Senate was in the spotlight Thursday, and it sure didn't look good. Granted, credit is due to Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer and their parties for reaching a new budget agreement. Even though it took them until February -- and they still have to actually write the spending bills that were due in October. Still, putting aside the question of whether the bill is good policy or not, at least they finally got it done. But it was so last-minute that they weren't able to vote on it until technically after the midnight deadline, when funding expired for much of the government. In fact, the agreement was ready much earlier. But it needed unanimous consent to reach an immediate vote, and Kentucky Republican [Rand Paul objected]( because he wanted to offer an amendment and McConnell refused to allow it. The majority leader said that he couldn't give Paul an opportunity because then everyone would want to offer amendments. To which I'd say: Well, isn't that what the Senate is supposed to do? No, McConnell didn't have to allow an unlimited number of amendments. But in the old days -- just a few years ago -- senators were capable of reaching an agreement to limit the number of amendments and the time spent on each one. The Senate in the 1990s and 2000s was governed by these "unanimous consent agreements," some of which were fairly simple but many of which could be fairly complex. For the most part, they successfully protected the majority party's interests while letting senators have a chance to make meaningful contributions. But all that has faded away. The main culprit seems to have been former Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid, and now McConnell has followed Reid's pattern and probably made it even worse. The goal doesn't appear to be protecting the underlying bill; leaders can do that by, for example, setting a 60-vote threshold for any amendment to pass, something that Reid also pioneered. (There's some question about whether Reid did that to ward off amendments, or as a reaction to Republican filibusters against Democratic amendments.) Simply doing away with amendments, however, has never been the way the Senate works. And this was particularly egregious, coming as it did on what may have been the most important bill of the entire session. As far as I can tell, all that's happening here is leaders protecting senators from having to cast tough votes. There's no good reason for it. They certainly could have made an agreement to allow, say, four amendments from both parties to be offered -- and they could still have finished before midnight. 1. Dan Drezner on Donald Trump's [macroeconomic policy](. OK as far as it goes, but a bit too presidency-focused for my tastes; Trump has been willing to sign, but the main actors here have been in Congress, not the White House. 2. Noam Gidron on [nationalism](. 3. Dahlia Lithwick on [Rob Porter]( and all those who looked the other way. 4. Stephen Gandel at Bloomberg Gadfly on a [president who doesn't understand the stock market](. 5. Greg Sargent on the [next steps on immigration](. 6. And I'm skeptical about what the Tea Party really wanted, but I think Philip Klein [gets this right](: Republican priorities "are lower taxes and higher military spending, and they are willing to accede to growth in entitlements and other government programs if that is what it takes to secure their first two goals." Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click [here]( to subscribe. Bloomberg L.P. ● 731 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022 [Web]( ● [Facebook]( ● [Twitter]( [Feedback]( ● [Unsubscribe](

Marketing emails from bloombergview.com

View More
Sent On

21/07/2024

Sent On

20/07/2024

Sent On

19/07/2024

Sent On

18/07/2024

Sent On

17/07/2024

Sent On

16/07/2024

Email Content Statistics

Subscribe Now

Subject Line Length

Data shows that subject lines with 6 to 10 words generated 21 percent higher open rate.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Number of Words

The more words in the content, the more time the user will need to spend reading. Get straight to the point with catchy short phrases and interesting photos and graphics.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Number of Images

More images or large images might cause the email to load slower. Aim for a balance of words and images.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Time to Read

Longer reading time requires more attention and patience from users. Aim for short phrases and catchy keywords.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Predicted open rate

Subscribe Now

Spam Score

Spam score is determined by a large number of checks performed on the content of the email. For the best delivery results, it is advised to lower your spam score as much as possible.

Subscribe Now

Flesch reading score

Flesch reading score measures how complex a text is. The lower the score, the more difficult the text is to read. The Flesch readability score uses the average length of your sentences (measured by the number of words) and the average number of syllables per word in an equation to calculate the reading ease. Text with a very high Flesch reading ease score (about 100) is straightforward and easy to read, with short sentences and no words of more than two syllables. Usually, a reading ease score of 60-70 is considered acceptable/normal for web copy.

Subscribe Now

Technologies

What powers this email? Every email we receive is parsed to determine the sending ESP and any additional email technologies used.

Subscribe Now

Email Size (not include images)

Font Used

No. Font Name
Subscribe Now

Copyright © 2019–2025 SimilarMail.