GOP filibustering everything

[Cali Coug]

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.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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.

To be candid, I don't watch politics with any degree of interest of detail. I usually just read some RealClearPolitics and some Drudge and leave it at that nowadays.

I have no problem with obstructionism in this case, though I admit if the guys and gals I liked were doing in power, I'd probably be a bit peeved but not too much as I don't even want them doing much. Whenever a bill is passed it usually costs all of us some money.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't know why it matters to you if it is really a filibuster or not

Because you're trying to make an apples to oranges comparison so you can say, "Look at those hypocritical Republican SOBs!" You get bogged down in lengthy procedural explanations that ironically illustrate the very point I'm making: it's not the same thing.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It isn't "whining," Tex. It is simple math. Only so many hours in a day.

"No holds barred obstructionism?" I honestly don't see how you get that description out of what Dems did on 2005-2006 but not think Republicans are far worse (a simple statistics review of cloture motions filed should make that perfectly clear). If 2005-2006 represented no holds barred obstructionism to you, you can't possibly be of the mind that Republicans aren't far worse (at least while still being honest).

This just makes me laugh. This is such unseemly whining in a Congress with 60 votes. Heck, based on what you're saying, you could have had 99 votes in the Senate, and still claim a right to complain about those damned obstructionist Republicans.

It's a convenient position for you to pretend to be in, but fortunately such lame impotence won't fly with the voters.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

As for "inability to complete major legislation," I don't think you have been paying attention. The stimulus bill alone makes this Congress one of the most prolific in the history of the nation. Isn't that actually what you have complained about in the past? You really can't have it both ways, you know. At least, while still being honest.

The original Obama "stimulus" bill is the only major piece of legislation this administration can claim so far. If you want to hang your hat on that lone achievement come November, be my guest. But you may want to check your own liberal blogs to see how happy your side is about it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Because you're trying to make an apples to oranges comparison so you can say, "Look at those hypocritical Republican SOBs!" You get bogged down in lengthy procedural explanations that ironically illustrate the very point I'm making: it's not the same thing.

You tell me what is the difference then. Shelby, as I said, is the tip of the iceberg. Even if you don't include his recent blanket hold, Republicans have still used the filibuster more than any other Congress in history, and it isn't close. Not holds, not other procedural bars, but the filibuster itself. On top of that, they have used holds. Lots and lots of holds. Shelby's is perhaps the most egregious example but it isn't even close to the only example. If you think holds are functionally different than the filibuster, then fine. You are wrong, but whatever. You don't even need to look at the number of holds to determine that Republicans have filibustered more than any prior Congress in history. Holds are just the icing on the cake. You keep making some point about how holds are technically different than the filibuster while ignoring the fact that the filibuster itself has been employed more by this Congress than ever before (with a full year to go before this Congress is done obstructing).

This just makes me laugh. This is such unseemly whining in a Congress with 60 votes. Heck, based on what you're saying, you could have had 99 votes in the Senate, and still claim a right to complain about those damned obstructionist Republicans.

It's a convenient position for you to pretend to be in, but fortunately such lame impotence won't fly with the voters.

Because of the silliness of Senate rules, a party could, in fact, have 99 members and still find itself obstructed by the lone opposing member. It would be quite a bit more difficult (as that one member would have to be on the floor all the time), but it wouldn't be impossible. A very dedicated obstructionist actually could slow Senate work to a grinding halt. The fact that you don't realize that is why you are struggling to understand how 39 (now 40) Republicans can cause so many problems.

The original Obama "stimulus" bill is the only major piece of legislation this administration can claim so far. If you want to hang your hat on that lone achievement come November, be my guest. But you may want to check your own liberal blogs to see how happy your side is about it.

Interesting. Are you suggesting I need to feel the same way liberal blogs feel about the issue? Or are you suggesting you agree with liberal blogs? Either way, I am not sure how this is at all relevant. For a decent write-up on the achievements of this Congress, check out Norman Ornstein:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012902516.html

I don't agree with all of his points, but he is spot on about the productivity of the 111th Congress.

[Archaea]

For you somehow, productive translates into good. For me it doesn't. More production equals more mischief.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You tell me what is the difference then.

I already told you the difference. I'm not going to repeat myself. You tried to say Shelby's tactic was the same as what Republicans opposed during the 109th Congress, and it demonstrably isn't. That's as far into the tall grass as I'm going to go with you on this.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Because of the silliness of Senate rules, a party could, in fact, have 99 members and still find itself obstructed by the lone opposing member. It would be quite a bit more difficult (as that one member would have to be on the floor all the time), but it wouldn't be impossible. A very dedicated obstructionist actually could slow Senate work to a grinding halt. The fact that you don't realize that is why you are struggling to understand how 39 (now 40) Republicans can cause so many problems.

I do realize that, and in such a circumstance (99-seat majority), I would say the majority party were idiots if they let a single senator do such a thing. There are reasons why legislation does eventually get through the Senate, and it has to do with compromise--something Obama figured he didn't need. He ignores and tramples Republicans until he loses his filibuster-free majority and (shocker!) suddenly he wants to talk.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Interesting. Are you suggesting I need to feel the same way liberal blogs feel about the issue? Or are you suggesting you agree with liberal blogs? Either way, I am not sure how this is at all relevant. For a decent write-up on the achievements of this Congress, check out Norman Ornstein:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012902516.html

I don't agree with all of his points, but he is spot on about the productivity of the 111th Congress.

I'm saying liberals are generally disgruntled with Obama's performance on their issues. And that Ornstein piece doesn't impress me: anybody can write a puff piece on a president they support.

This November the voters will weigh in on how they feel about Congressional productivity. It appears you will insist on wearing blinders until then. *Shrug* Fine with me.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I already told you the difference. I'm not going to repeat myself. You tried to say Shelby's tactic was the same as what Republicans opposed during the 109th Congress, and it demonstrably isn't. That's as far into the tall grass as I'm going to go with you on this.

Actually, it demonstrably is (I know this, because I already showed it).

I do realize that, and in such a circumstance (99-seat majority), I would say the majority party were idiots if they let a single senator do such a thing. There are reasons why legislation does eventually get through the Senate, and it has to do with compromise--something Obama figured he didn't need. He ignores and tramples Republicans until he loses his filibuster-free majority and (shocker!) suddenly he wants to talk.

Interesting. How would you propose the majority not "let a single senator" do such a thing? If you do "realize that," you would realize it isn't in the majority's power to control whether or not a single Senator would play the role of obstructionist. That's the problem.

I'm saying liberals are generally disgruntled with Obama's performance on their issues. And that Ornstein piece doesn't impress me: anybody can write a puff piece on a president they support.

This November the voters will weigh in on how they feel about Congressional productivity. It appears you will insist on wearing blinders until then. *Shrug* Fine with me.

I'm a liberal and I am far from disgruntled.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Actually, it demonstrably is (I know this, because I already showed it).

Ok, fine. I encourage you to go on a TV news program of your choice and tell it to them. See how long it takes to be laughed off the screen. I put the over/under at 14 seconds.

And please let me know when it is, so I can tune in.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Interesting. How would you propose the majority not "let a single senator" do such a thing? If you do "realize that," you would realize it isn't in the majority's power to control whether or not a single Senator would play the role of obstructionist. That's the problem.

Compromise, or make it politically untenable. Welcome to politics.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I'm a liberal and I am far from disgruntled.

That's because you're a Kool-Aid drinker. There's still a few of you left.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Ok, fine. I encourage you to go on a TV news program of your choice and tell it to them. See how long it takes to be laughed off the screen. I put the over/under at 14 seconds.

And please let me know when it is, so I can tune in.

Appeal to popular opinion. Fail.

Compromise, or make it politically untenable. Welcome to politics.

So when you said "force," you actually meant "force" in the sense of "acquiesce to their demands through compromise" or "hope popular opinion will push him to drop his obstructionism." Weren't you demanding precise definitions earlier in this thread? Tisk tisk.

So let's assume you don't cave in through compromise. Instead you wait him out. In the meantime, what has happened? The Senate has been obstructed by one single dedicated Senator. Your use of the word "force" ironically highlights that no actual apparatus exists which can "force" the Senator to stop the obstructionism. There is no work around. There is no alternative plan. The 99 member majority must deal with the Senator for so long as he remains dedicated in opposition.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Appeal to popular opinion. Fail.

*Shrug* Appeal to the dictionary, is more like it.

You'd think the fact that you have your own personal definition of words would give you pause. Filibuster, socialism ... we really need a Cali-to-English translation when talking to you.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So when you said "force," you actually meant "force" in the sense of "acquiesce to their demands through compromise" or "hope popular opinion will push him to drop his obstructionism." Weren't you demanding precise definitions earlier in this thread? Tisk tisk.

So let's assume you don't cave in through compromise. Instead you wait him out. In the meantime, what has happened? The Senate has been obstructed by one single dedicated Senator. Your use of the word "force" ironically highlights that no actual apparatus exists which can "force" the Senator to stop the obstructionism. There is no work around. There is no alternative plan. The 99 member majority must deal with the Senator for so long as he remains dedicated in opposition.

I didn't use the word "force."