Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
For you Cali, the Dems are Saints who use filibuster for noble purposes of advancing debate, but the Reps are ruthless scum acting purely in terms of obstructionism. You also state the Reps vote for something once it's gone to vote as evidence that the Reps didn't oppose the underlying bill or person. Well, you ignore the possibility that the Reps might oppose it but need better cover or to allow a vote when nobody's watching.
Secondarily, as the work of the Senate often involves work that I mostly disapprove, I am not that unhappy its work is stalled.
Here is an interesting dilemma for me. On one hand, I recognize the argument, as it is made in first year poli sci, that we elect representatives and try to trust their judgment.
But that's not really true for me. I rarely trust any of them. I usually vote for somebody I detest less than his or her opponent. So I really want everybody back there to do nothing, if they can't do exactly what I wish.
I do not approve of Obama's health care insurance reform, so I'd love for it to come to a screaming halt.
I can't think of a project he's tackling that I like the result. So stop it please!
|
No, not at all. Dems have certainly used it to be obstructionists as well. In my opinion, they have also used it to promote debate in the past as well. Even if, however, you think in 100% of the cases Democrats used it to be obstructionists, they used it FAR less than Republicans have in this Congress (a statistical fact), and it is quite clear Republicans aren't using it to advance debate (they often are actually voting FOR the underlying measures once the filibuster is broken). Shelby's obstructionism is just the tip of the Republican iceberg hoping to sink the Senate.