- ‹ previous
- 1676 of 2798
- next ›
Reconciliation
RECONCILIATION....Elana Schor reports that Mitch McConnell is being cagey about whether Senate Republicans will filibuster the stimulus bill. Cue McConnell:
Our goal is to produce a bill that makes a difference; not to kill the measure. So the goal is entirely different from what your question seems to suggest. The goal is to make it better. And we go into this with an open mind. We have two, I think, really good ideas that are entirely in line with what the president I think wants to do.
Actually, I believe him. If Republicans really did put up a united front and filibuster the legislation, the Democratic leadership would just turn around and consider the bill under budget reconciliation rules, which require only a majority vote to pass. Sure, they've already said they'd prefer not to do that, but if they have to they will. And since the bill is all about short-term spending, it would obviously qualify under reconciliation rules.
So all the public handwringing seems like standard DC negotiating kabuki to me, not a genuine effort to kill the bill. If Republicans filibuster, the public will view them as bitter obstructionists and the bill will pass anyway. It's hard to see what's in it for them to go down this road.
POSTSCRIPT: Though if they did lose their minds and filibuster, it would be a great opportunity for Harry Reid to bring back the old filibuster rules and make 'em talk. I know that's just a leftosphere wet dream, but still. It would be great. Hell, how about if we just use this as an excuse to haul out the nuclear option and get rid of the filibuster completely? That would totally rock.
Hell, how about if we just use this as an excuse to haul out the nuclear option and get rid of the filibuster completely? That would totally rock.
Kevin: Lots of folks have been making this suggestion lately. Talk about a leftosphere wet dream. But, since you bring up the reconciliation process, why can't that just be used all the time as a weapon against the filibuster? It seems, in another words, that there already exists a parliamentary procedure that renders impotent the anti-majoritarian power of the filibuster. One wonders why exactly the filibuster is such a pain-in-the-butt given the existence of this work around.
"That would totally rock."
So you really wish to strip almost half the population of their remaining political influence in Washington?
You people are a pack of little fascists.
leftosphere wet dream
Thanks, that ruined my evening.
b1: Yep, you called it. A desire for legislation to be passed by majority vote reminds me of Mussolini too.
I don't suppose you'd care to mount a defense of routine legislation requiring 60 votes to pass rather than 50?
I'm beginning to think this stimulus bill has no future. I don't know what's going to replace it, but it certainly will be a disaster for the country once this bill dies.
Obama has done a terrible job of selling it. The Dems have been way too defensive about it (except for Barney Frank). This has given the initiative to the GOP.
The irony is that I don't think a lot of the GOP wants it to die either, they just wanted to score a few cheap political points. But now the opposition to the bill seems to have taken a life of its own.
I don't suppose you'd care to mount a defense of routine legislation requiring 60 votes to pass rather than 50?
And it's been so effective in California, too!
Speaking of... Consider this a request to introduce some California-centric posts to your little site here. The wider audience would probably tolerate it and some of us Californians really appreciated that old CalPundit site.
Make 'em talk. If they have the courage of their convictions then each will undoubtedly want to explain it for hours to help future historians.
I don't suppose you'd care to mount a defense of routine legislation requiring 60 votes to pass rather than 50?
Game on.
Look, there is a worthwhile mechanical reason for the filibuster. It can slow down the passage of odious legislation. Six years ago, I was hoping someone would filibuster the Patriot Act (the poster child of a bad legislative rush job). I was disappointed since the left side of the Senate was (and is) made up of sheep.
Considering again, this:
routine legislation requiring 60 votes to pass rather than 50?
That is an unfortunate consequence of Sen Mike Mansfield's two track system for considering legislation. If a filibuster actually were to cause a halt to all action, it would be used one hell of a lot less because of the tremendous downside.
As it is now, filibuster are a low risk, high pay off venture unless you are a pant wetting Democrat.
And Kevin, that Mussolini comment was just infantile. Why go half way? Seig heil, y'all.
The previous administration already threw hundreds of billions of dollars away. Obama is doing the same. More deficit spending. Get deeper in debt to solve a problem created by massive debt. I voted for Obama and believe he was the best candidate available, but it is sad to watch him play by the same old rules.
Why can't he explain to the nation that this is a problem created by excessive Debt and that creating more Debt (Deficit spending) will only dig us into a deeper hole. Oh wait, I already know the answer. No politician will tell people a truth the public is not ready to face, so Obama will, like all other politicians, will throw borrowed money at the problem and keep doing it long enough until the problem works itself out.
Don't get me wrong. Obama is doing a good job on non-economic issues. Given the size of our economic problems, there is not much he can do, but instead of telling the public the ugly truth, he is happily playing along and sacrificing borrowed money. Robbing the future generations to pay for our current excesses -- just as all politicians do.
And don't even get me started with Geithner and Daschle -- two tax cheats who should not be offered cabinet positions for their disregard for the tax law.
I don't suppose you'd care to mount a defense of routine legislation requiring 60 votes to pass rather than 50?
Posted by: Kevin Drum on 02/02/09 at 9:18 PM
What about your and the One's support of filbusting Supreme Court Justices back in the Bush days? Weren't you also against the "nuclear option" to stop the filbuster against judicial nominees?
Are you just in favor of getting rid of it now simply because you have the majority?
Face it, if a piece of legislation that is claimed to be the answer to a national emergency can't get enough Senators to agree to stop debate and allow for an up and down vote probably doesn't deserve to pass, don't you think?
Besides there is no way that the Republicans will stand in the way of passage. After another week or two of debate about the how the bill will not work, if the Democrats are stupid enough to pass it on their alone, why would the Republicans stop them?
If Republicans do indeed have legitimate objections to the "stimulus" bill, they should come out and oppose it and get on record. Later, if the stimulus bill is somehow considered a blunder, those who opposed it can take credit for their visionary stance.
Remember that is how Obama made his mark with the anti-war crowd. He opposed the Iraq war when it was very popular and offered an eloquent explanation for why it won't work. A few years later Americans realized that Obama was right and that helped launch his candidacy.
I am a liberal on social issues and I oppose the stimulus bill because it is deficit spending. That said, I don't know how most Republicans can oppose this spending bill -- they love deficit spending and have elevated Reagan, the guy who let Deficit spending loose, to Lord status. If Republicans or Democrats, oppose this bill let them eloquently state their position for the record.
"It can slow down the passage of odious legislation." You mean like Civil Rights legislation?
Look, I know this upsets Republicans (who seem to prefer the theory of economics as they define it, rather than reality) but we don't have to sit around imaging this; we have history to look to. And what does history tell us:
- plenty of odious and damn stupid legislation passed just fine even with the filibuster
- plenty of progressive legislation was stopped by the fillibuster
There are actually academics who have, you know, looked at this in detail, and the general conclusion is that filibusters are a powerful force for preventing progressive legislation.
Now if you oppose the filibuster on the grounds that you want less progressive legislation, that is fine, but don't throw out bullshit claims about how it could have prevented japanese internments and Guantanamo torture when the plain fact is that it didn't prevent those.
"What about your and the One's support of filbusting Supreme Court Justices back in the Bush days? Weren't you also against the "nuclear option" to stop the filbuster against judicial nominees?
Are you just in favor of getting rid of it now simply because you have the majority?
"
I don't know what Kevin's position was, but I know that the majority opinion in the leftosphere was, sure, get rid of the filibuster, in the long run it's for the best. Go check out Matthew Yglessias' archives if you don't believe me.
Kevin Drum wrote:
"Yep, you called it. A desire for legislation to be passed by majority vote reminds me of Mussolini too."
_______________
It should, if what you are looking for is complete legislative dominance in a time of crisis. Mussolini's tamed legislature gave him everything he wanted even before he assumed the dictatorship. As Ernst Nolte wrote (Three Faces of Fascism), "The hopes which with Mussolini was welcomed were high and sincere" (even from the opposition). "[N]o one doubted that the form of government must undergo a change which would create conditions of clear majority in parliament and give the head of state greater authority."
Mussolini justified the suppression and murder of opposition leaders and parties by labeling them corrupt, criminal and incompetent, while at the same time appealing to their cooperation. At one point as a crisis approached, Mussolini made a speech in the Parliamentary chamber trying to persuade the opposition to collaborate. "[H]e had no intention, he claimed, of abolishing Parliament, but the opposition must be 'sensible,' it must not oppose for the sake of opposing." (Nolte again)
This is not to say there is any similarity between Mussolini and President Obama, because there isn't. It's just that the seductive impulse to totally eradicate the opposition is completely natural and always present.
Of course, the methods of today are different, to fit our gentler goals. Instead of squadrists, we use batteries of blogs and platoons of press to discredit, deride, revile, and ruin those who disagree with us (all the while decrying the "politics of personal destruction".)
No, what smacks of totalitarianism is the dream that it would be wonderful to hamstring the scattered minions of the opposition party, so that they could never return. The dream that our every idea could be enacted into law without serious check or roadblock, or even further debate - after all, haven't we already debated it all amongst ourselves and declared ourselves right?
There is, of course, nothing illegal about any of that, nor are the implications very troubling for some - righteous advocacy being so much easier to wield than responsibility.
"Mussolini's tamed legislature"
Since there is no freaking tamed legislature (11 dems voted AGAINST the package) stop wasting everyone's time with your concern trollishness. There are still popular votes in the US, you know.
There are plenty of countries (like every democracy in the world outside the US) that don't have filibusters. Do you honestly claim that Australia, or Britain, or Canada are not democracies because their ELECTED leaders can get their parliaments to pass legislation with a 50% majority?
Prediction: You will get the desired talkathon within the year. Healthcare would be my guess, but alternative energy or some sort of industrial bailout (Detroit redux? Aircraft?) are also likely suspects.
Wikipedia:
"In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster can therefore be as powerful as an actual filibuster. Previously, the filibustering senator(s) could delay voting only by making an endless speech. Currently, they need only indicate that they are filibustering, thereby preventing the Senate from moving on to other business until the motion is withdrawn or enough votes are gathered for cloture."
Q: When did fake filibusters become effective? Why did they decide to admit them?
Also: sometimes Senators filibuster, while denying that they are filibustering. How does that work?
I'm not in favor of nuclear options (because someday Dems might need the filibuster themselves) but I'm all for making Republicans haul out their phone books! In the television age, that's going to look very different to their viewing audience than it did in previous decades.
We see stock markets all over the world deteriorating further as the posturing in DC goes on. If the government were moving with alacrity on the stimulus, we would probably be seeing signs of a bottom. The stimulus is the only hope of reversing the slide toward Depression.
"'It can slow down the passage of odious legislation.' You mean like Civil Rights legislation?"
______________
It depends on which Civil Rights legislation you're talking about. For example, Republicans voted for the 1964 Act in higher percentages than Democrats.
The original House version:[9]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Odd...We have all known you from the threads for several years now, and I can't seem to recall you ever uttering a single hand-wringing pixel about it when the republicans were threatening to 'go nuclear.'
I am still waiting for a President and Congress to actually get the message and start representing America-Protect our borders instead of undercutting our governmental programs by giving away our welfare nets to illegal aliens while permiting drugs by the tons to come into the U.S. It's pretty bad when the worsst offenders on hiring illegal aliens are the congressmen who are supposed to keep our borders safe> It's also pretty bad when they are the ones guilty of not payiing their taxes and hiding their incomes in the Caymuns!
Hot potato, hot potato.
Seems like nobody really has great confidence about what to do about the massive debt crash that Ross Pee-rot warned us about thirty years ago. On the one hand, it's spend trillions; on the other hand, massive deficits. Still waiting for Harry Truman's one-armed economist.
Stimulus is in the realm of abstruse economic theory, so one might think the president's Council of Economic Advisers' would be eager to shape the bill by and large. Yet Obama and his boys seem more than willing to pass the buck and let Nan run the show. The Republicans seem uneager to share in the credit. Nan being the machine political hack she is seems more than willing to grab the opportunity to pork the country for the party.
...We have all known you from the threads for several years now, and I can't seem to recall you ever uttering a single hand-wringing pixel about it when the republicans were threatening to 'go nuclear.'
_____________
I support the idea of a filibuster, but I'd really prefer it being the real thing. I wouldn't mind if the Democrats made the minority sweat to make their points. Elected office is becoming too cushy as it is.
No, that would not rock. Hacks like David Cay Johnston would report on how hard the Republicans were working, and the Democrats and Obama are just so MEAN.
Journalists are such fucking self-centered whores.
Hell, how about if we just use this as an excuse to haul out the nuclear option and get rid of the filibuster completely? That would totally rock.
You weren't so fond of this idea a few years ago, Kevin. I can't imagine what has your changed mind.... Nice to see such a consistent, principled stand from you.
I support the idea of a filibuster, but I'd really prefer it being the real thing.
It's a red letter day! We agree on something! I dunno about you, but I can't decide whether to scan the horizon for horsemen, or head out to buy lottery tickets.
DeWitt watch for sale
Cartier watch for sale
chopard watch for sale
Concord watch for sale
croum watch for sale
DeWitt watch for sale
ebel watch for sale
Ferrari watch for sale
Franck Muller watch for sale
Glashutte watch for sale
replica Rolex
replica Rolex Daytona
replica Rolex Explorer
replica Rolex GMT
replica Rolex Sea-Dweller
replica Rolex Day Date
replica Rolex Masterpiece
replica Rolex Milgauss
rolex replica
A.Lange & Sohne replica
Audemars Piguet replica
Bell & Ross replica
Breguet replica
Breitling replica
Burberry replica
Concord replica
croum replica
DeWitt replica
ebel replicaFerrari replica
Franck Muller replica
Glashutte replica
Graham replica
rolex replica A.Lange &
rolex replica
A.Lange & Sohne replica
Audemars Piguet replica
Bell & Ross replica
Breguet replica
Breitling replica
Burberry replica
Bvlgari replica
Cartier replica
chopard replica
Concord replica
croum replica
DeWitt replica
ebel replica
Ferrari replica
mac g4 power supply mac g3
mac g4 power supply
mac g3 power supply
dell power supply
hp power supply
Toshiba power supply
Sony power supply
Samsung power supply
Gateway power supply
Fujitsu power supply
ugg boots uk
Eliminating the need for the extra trouble to wear ugg boots uk 、ugg boots sale, in the extreme sports, look for happiness in life, with Christian Louboutin and nike sb showed off your tall body, do not worry about being laughed at, dancing new style Christian Louboutin shoes、ugg boots london and ugg boots sale. The flavor of life that is colorful, there are Classic tall boots 、ugg sale、ugg london and nike dunk also used fear to creep away money from your pocket Mody ? Love beauty, you might even love Christian Louboutin Boots。
replica Cartier
I know that many people had a special liking for Tiffany necklaces. However, when you buy, be sure to keep a clear head, you can buy the best necklace.Now I will introduce five steps following for you to refer.
replica Franck Muller
replica Gucci
replica IWC
replica Longines
replica Louis Vuitton
replica Omega
replica Panerai
replica Patek Philippe
Perhaps, a replica Tiffany jewelry is enough to make you enjoy the good life. I never thought I must have a real Tiffany jewelry, as long as our investment direction is right, we win.
Louis Vuitton replica
chopard replica
Concord replica
croum replica
DeWitt replica
ebel replica
Ferrari replica
Franck Muller replica
Glashutte replica
Graham replica
Hermes replica
Hublot replica
IWC replica
Jaquet droz replica
Lady replica
Longines replica