- ‹ previous
- 1547 of 2722
- next ›
The Opposition Opposes
THE OPPOSITION OPPOSES....Atrios says it's OK for the opposition party to oppose the president en masse:
I don't have a problem with Republicans who, on balance, wanted the bill to pass but still voted against it. I don't really think it's "cowardice" or whatever, they're simply making it clear that they're the opposition party. And that's a good thing! It's only in bizarro Broderville, combined with the annoying supermajority bits of the Senate, that anyone really thinks differently.
Basically, I agree. Both parties have an interest in differentiating themselves, and the best way to do that is to make the majority party responsible for its agenda.
But as Atrios also points out, there's one problem with this: "the annoying supermajority bits of the Senate." A parliamentary system is fine if you have the machinery of a parliamentary system, in which the majority party has the power to pass its legislative program and then stands or falls based on how well it works out. But it's not so fine if a party can win the presidency, the House, and the Senate by landslide majorities but still can't pass big parts of its program because it needs 60 votes in the Senate.
If Republicans want to adopt the party discipline features of a parliamentary system, fine. But they also need to adopt the rest of the system as well. The filibuster was never intended to become a routine requirement that all legislation needs 60% of the vote in the Senate to pass. But that's what it's become. It's time for reform.
Hmmmm....
The filibuster was never intended to become a routine requirement that all legislation needs 60% of the vote in the Senate to pass. But that's what it's become. It's time for reform.
Did you hold this opinion when Dems were in the minority in the Senate. Kevin?
Harry Reid appears to have
He hardly ever did anything to upset the Republican majority.
It's worse than that, even
Remember that the Senate is already a nonmajoritarian body, with members representing vastly different numbers of constituents based on the size of their states. So you could have legislation blocked by a minority coalition representing not 40% of the population, but instead some much smaller number, if that coalition is largely composed of members from smaller states.
Did you hold this opinion when Dems were in the minority in the Senate.
I dunno about Kevin, but I sure did. Dems rarely used the filibuster anyway, afraid of the "nuclear option" and preferring to "keep their powder dry" waiting for some supposedly more important confrontation that never came.
Kevin, what would anyone
tagged as:- solution
- result
Kevin, what would anyone expect happen when filibusters became virtual games only?
It's no longer a filibuster but a filibluster. Make every filibuster an all night, several day affair, and so make it have a cost.
"Captain, if you don't let us disintegrate our casualties, Vendikar will have no choice but to start using real weapons, and both planets and all their people, will be destroyed. You are destroying two planets." Kirk smiles in that way of his and says "Well, let's find out." and he and Spock fire their phasers into the entire computer. Kirk says "Now you have two choices. Either fire real weapons or talk peace"
Kevin, I frequently wonder
Kevin, I frequently wonder what Mother Jones would say if she came back today and saw what congress has done to America.
Mother Jones taught us to “Fight Like Hell for the Living” and the first thing I believe she will observe is that congress just doesn’t give a damn about the Living as the polls of congressional disapproval by about two-thirds of the electorate prove most frequently.
She’ll probably note with dismay that congressmen/women in both parties treat themselves like the royalty we had a Revolutionary War to rid ourselves of, and “To Hell with the Living” is their de facto creed.
So it was no wonder that once Obama sent his bill to the congress it was like throwing it into a cesspool of the corrupt (republicans), the profane (all politicians), and the incompetent (democrats).
On the nature of opposition: a paraphrase
"But an argument isn't just automatic naysaying of whatever the other party proposes!"
"Yes, it is."
"No, it isn't."
"Is too."
"Is not!"
"Is."
"Isn't!"
And so it goes.
"You signed the papers. You wanted to be here!" -Drill Sgt. Leach, 1971
And yet again I have to
And yet again I have to point out that it is the management of the Senate that has allowed this to happen. To avoid having to sit in their seats and debate, to avoid having to skip fundraising trips, they have allowed it to be taken as read that a filibuster is happening. No one has to actually stage a filibuster. They just have to say they are and it is as if they are staging one. The filibuster is cheap.
Make it expensive again and it will once again become rare.
This is easy. They just don't want to do it because it screws up both sides' fundraising efforts.
"It's time for
"It's time for reform"
Please provide us with a link to the posting wherein you called for
this reform when Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency, thanks.
There's no point in playing
There's no point in playing silly word games with the far right. They have demonstrated who they are, what they want, and what they're willing to do to get it.
With that in mind, it's time for the Dems to play hardball: make Congressional Republicans back up every filibuster threat in traditional style; shut them out of the legislative process: no amendments, no bills passed, no privileges ... . In other words, treat 'em like dirt. Make it not worth their while to show up each morning until they either start to cooperate or ... stay home! Either result would be good for the country.
I like the filibuster
OK, so I'm unusual. I like it that you actually have to convince more than 51% of the people to do something in order to get it done. OK, well, more that 51% of the Senate, not the same thing. But the principle applies.
"Democracy only means that 51% of us can pee in the cornflakes of the other 49%". Remember, Dubya won an election, too.
The Senate was built as a brake, or shock absorber, for legislation. What's so bad about that? So you have to peel some of the opposition off to get something done. Is that really so bad? I like it that there's a check on the power of the majority party. I like it when the GOP was in charge of the White House and Congress, and I like it now.
Yes, you have to work harder to get stuff through Congress. That's good. Quick bills can be dangerous.
Imagine Dubya and Cheney being able to pass anything - ANYTHING - they want. When you get over that, resolve to be patient.
Business Week Exposure of Democratic Congressional Corruption
The new Business Week Cover Story “The Home Foreclosure Fiasco” (2/23/09 issue, p 034) confirms beyond all doubt that the democrats have caught up with, if not passed, the level of corruption that the republican politicians used to be role models for.
Two sidebars on “Financial Lobbying” ((p 036) and “Political Generosity” (p 037) document the facts about the incredible corruption of Dodd, Frank, Durbin and Rangel who have gone to bed with every banking industry lobbyist in Washington, “undermining efforts to keep people in their houses” thus “making the foreclosure crisis worse.”
The new reality in Washington is that in just two years the democrats have received more “Campaign donations” and “financial lobbying” to become the new Lords of Corruption in Washington. Now that they have congressional majorities, democrats have most certainly and quickly triumphed from being the most incompetent to outdoing the republicans and becoming the most corrupt politicians in Washington.
No wonder Geithner is having so much trouble making the new Lords of Corruption change their ways, he is trying to tell them the truth and they can no longer hear the truth when it jeopardizes their new cultural values of power and avarice now that they control congress.
So the democrats have a new monkey, in addition to see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil when it comes to dealing with the truth about their corruption, they now have To Hell with America monkeys running congress and destroying the American economy for the sake of their new, out of control levels of power and greed. Have to give them credit for one thing though, the democrats have obviously learned a lot while they watched and did nothing during the Bush Autocracy that was previously in charge of destroying the American Way of Life.
The Stimulus Bill Wasn't Filibustered
PAYGO in the Senate requires a point of order vote (3/5ths majority -- 60 votes -- to carry) if the cost of a proposed bill will not be matched by spending cuts elsewhere or tax increases.
I think the answer is to
I think the answer is to affix a number. Max of, say, three times you can do this a year.
After you drop the challenge flag, Congress starts debate. Debate ends after a day or two. The person or persons who drop the challenge flag get to lead their side. A new vote is taken. If no minds have been changed, and you still get at least 51 in favor of the new bill or nominee, the filibuster fails and you move on.
Some reforms
tagged as:- solution
I applaud your idea for reform. Here are a few ways to get started:
We need a third party, a
We need a third party, a bankruptcy and liquidation party, after the other two get finished with this country.
Filibuster
tagged as:- solution
An analogy might be, in direction and not in intensity, that when a coach throws the red sock onto the football field he runs the risk of losing a timeout if he loses the challenge.
I have no idea what the rish/reward thing should be for those who choose to filibuster, but I do agree that it should be a carefully considered move, not as it is today, a given that it takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate.
The 3 Strikes Doctrine
tagged as:- solution
I have a solution to this abuse of the filibuster, and I call it "The 3 Strikes Doctrine."
Conceptually it is simple: The minority is permitted up to 2 "tabled" measures at any time, presumably due to sincerely and deeply felt disagreement making compromise impossible. Once a third measure is filibustered (bills that have achieved 51+ votes for cloture) then the doctrine slams into effect.
According to the doctrine, all other work of the Senate stops, and the general session goes into 24/7 operation debating these three bills exclusively. This means that no committee or sub-committee meetings may occur. No scheduled events of any kind are permitted, including press interviews or press conferences. Nothing. Any attempt by any Senator to break-out of this constriction shall be objected to by the majority leader, backed by his majority party members. Any parlimentary trick necessary will be employed to make life-as-we-know-it for all Senators simply stop, except for debating these three bills.
The point is to draw as much media attention as possible to the fact that the obstructionist party has temporarily "destroyed" the Senate as an institution. Political supporters in the media should be encouraged to compare this situation to a "Hostage crisis" or a "Terrorist attack" blamed upon the minority. This complete shutdown will continue until one of the three "tabled" measures is allowed to "end debate" by passing the cloture vote. Only then will the Senate resume orderly conduct.
The majority party must respect the fact that a minority that is willing to filibuster routinely has already thwarted the will of the people, and that utterly halting the entire Senate is little different.
Note that this is NOT A RULE CHANGE. It is a doctrine, meaning that the majority party can choose to follow it without taking any vote at all, although it would require great DISCIPLINE to insure that at least 51 Senators of the majority party have the courage to stay the course and not "cave in" to pressure to let the minority off the hook and resume operations.
The 3 Strikes Doctrine has the big advantage of being easy to communicate to the press, and easy to rhetorically paint the minority with, which is the whole point. You cannot wait until a dozen bills have been tabled, and then suddenly spring this on them. The Majority party must make a huge deal in the press about this doctrine being the formal policy of the party, and how the minority will be responsible for invoking it.