Newsday's editorial "Nuclear option shows depth of Senate paralysis" [Nov. 22] states, "That no deal was possible this time shows the depth of Senate dysfunction. It was time to give rule by a simple majority a try."
Or, in other words, every time you don't get your way, you change the rules. Does this change enhance bipartisanship? Or does it encourage mob rule? When he was a first-year senator in 2005, Barack Obama said that to make this very change in the rules was all about obtaining power and not about fairness. Why is it fair now?
How about this? How about we change the rules so that a simple majority is needed to impeach the president of the United States?
I thought the media existed, in part, to protect the people from corrupt government. If indeed it does, you certainly are not performing your job very well.
Ron Zaleski, Smithtown
Will Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid be viewed as Santa Claus or the Grinch by the end of the current session of Congress? The change in rules to give Senate Democrats a way to clear the nominee backlog also gives the Democratic Party ownership of a dysfunctional Senate.
A Pew Research Center survey in early October found that just 23 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Congress. With that said, Reid's use of the nuclear option moves Democratic candidates into the line of fire, making them potentially collateral damage in 2014.
Mark M. Spradley, Roosevelt
How well did it work the last time Harry Reid's Senate implemented something via a strictly partisan vote? We got Obamacare and its aftermath of health care displacement and upheaval.
Maybe if it were the Republicans "nuking" the filibuster for their short-term political gain, the paper would see things differently.
Jim Soviero, East Setauket