I have no idea. It certainly is an answer to the debate to say, “Yes, that’s their viewpoint, and it’s a very valid one, because…” and then go on to list the reasons that it’s valid.
Sounds perfectly reaosnable to me. Republicans have demonstrated they have not had the interests of the country as a whole in mind when they govern. They govern only in the interests of people like themselves. So be it.
Democrats should use whatever means necessary to prevent Republicans from achieving their goals, which do not coincide with mine, or people like me. I see no reason to play fair with someone who has consistently demonstrated they want to screw me over whenever I let them get away with it. I think Republicans should be treated no better than they have treated me.
Yes, I am a partisan. No, I will not play fair. You look out for yours and i will look out for mine. No quarter asked, and none given.
My proposed change: filibusters are still allowed, and they may not be overruled. If you filibuster a piece of legislation, it is tabled for the entire session.
To enact a filibuster, you must resign from the senate. Your seat will be filled at the end of the current session. You are ineligible to hold office in the senate again.
Okay, maybe that’s a little extreme. We need something between that proposal and the current situation, which is that filibusters are trivial to enact and carry very little consequence. They’re a good idea, but they should have a cost, so that they don’t get overused.
Also, my corollary proposal: abolish the Senate, fertheloveoChrist. It’s an insanely antiquated body that mistakes the individual state for the significant party in a representative democracy. Or if we must have such an institution, set up blocks of represented people according to non-geographic criteria, to capture trends in the electorate that are not captured by the House.
You filthy old Rawlsian, you! 
However, the argument I was advancing (in my, shall we say, more strident second post) was that the rules weren’t agreed on ahead of time before knowing who they would benefit. Instead the rules were designed to defend the interests of those who made them - those with power.
As I hinted, this isn’t a Democrat-Republican thing. It’s a powerful-powerless thing.
More abstractly, the argument would be that following the rules only provides a fair result if the rules themselves are fair. The argument is akin to that around racism in the US - it was found insufficient to say that the rules need to be, at this moment in time - color neutral. There is nothing magical about a rule that makes it “fair,” and there is no reason to presume rules will be fair.
There isn’t a veil of ignorance we can draw over ourselves in rule making. Rules can be facially fair and have deliberate disparate impacts. Majority populations can agree to rules that seriously disempower minority populations.
There certainly were a large number of Republicans who were very much in favor of eliminating a certain subclass of filibusters when Bush was president-- ie, for judicial appointments. Those people don’t seem at all eager to push for this now that Obama is president.
And **Simplicio **has added some nuance to this debate that would have been better had it been in the OP in the first place.
Having said that, I’m definitely on that anti-hypocrisy side of things.
My intent isn’t to side with this organization because they very well may be hypocrites, but I can see a valid way to be making these arguments in context.
If they made the first statement during the time when fillibusters were rarely invoked, and only pulled out for the really important stuff, and the second statement during a time when more fillibusters are being used than in the (IIRC) entire history of the United States, those statements can be consistent.
They may support the idea that a real filibuster (and not a procedural one) can be used when a truly important matter is under question, but not support the idea that the minority party should procedurally fillibuster everything, effectively changing the nature of the senate to require 60 votes to do anything. I’m actually rather sympathetic to that position myself without regard for a democrat/republican issue. If filibusters were a once or twice a decade thing, a principled stance on a big issue where the senators actually stood for 5 days straight and spoke on the issue because they were so passionate about it, it would be a massive improvement over the notion that you can simply require a 60 vote on everything by merely implying a threatened fillibuster.
My position is consistent and non-hypocritical even though it favors democrats and disfavors republicans - but that’s simply because that’s how each party has chosen to use the fillibuster. I’m not being inconsistent if I say the republicans are abusing the fillibuster whereas (at least from what I recall) the democrats aren’t, because the way they’re using it is completely different and you can have a different take on that.
Fillibusters should be a big deal. They should be meaningful. They should only be used on very important issues. As it is, the minority party simply says “oh we fillibuster” in regards to a proposal to discuss a specific bill, which means it costs them nothing and they can fillibuster everything just to be obstructionists. Forcing them to go out there and actually fillibuster gives it a cost - but personal and political. They have to actually experience discomfort over days, which would reduce the number of things they’d be willing to go to bat for - and because it better informs the populace of their true nature. If you’re taking a principled stand and the cameras see you sitting out there for days, you might gain favor. If the public sees you out there making a stance for your corporate masters over some bullshit bill, then you’ll lose favor. Either way, you’re actually letting the public see what you’re willing to fight for.
The procedural fillibuster should absolutely be abolished. The actual fillibuster I’m not so sure about.
I used to think it was bad until I needed to be hypocritical, now I am for it.
Personally, I’m in favor of Bricker not being allowed to post any tu quoque’s without a 60% vote of the entire Board in favor.
Seriously, Brick, when did you take a job with the GOP? Not that I mind or anything, I just hope you’re really sticking it to 'em on the expense reports and hope to be invited on the next “fact-finding tour”.
Just for record Bricker, is it anymore hypocritical than?
““We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture,” Bush said during a photo opportunity with Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Medgyessy. “The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being.”” -Ex-president Bush (per a republican biased cite)
So what’s worse, an inconstant position about filibusters, or lying to the American people about torture?
Threads like this show your true colors. You don’t fucking care one bit for the well being of the country, you just want your boys in.
Further, fuck Republicans, here’s their sign.
Bush’s position is consistent. He didn’t, and doesn’t, agree that the acts in question are torture. He asked the Justice Department to analyze the issue and he relied on their finding.
So what you mean is that you happen to disagree with his, and their, conclusion.
Of course, you feel its necessary to cloak that in demonization.
I recommend you study the term “tu quoque.”
Or why not try something entirely different - give the speaker of the house (senate leader?) some teeth.
Anybody can “debate” the substance of a bill for as long as they wish - so long as they stay “on topic”. Who says whether they stay “on topic”? Well the speaker / senate leader.
This of course gives the “referee” a lot of power, but wouldn’t it be better to have a procedural way to handle that than the current mess you all have over there? Say - the leader must have 75% approval from the senate or something similiar?
Yeah, that bastard! He felt it necessary to demonize torture! What next, is he gonna out-and-out declare that rapists are not nice people?
Listen you yourself. You seriously seem to be implying that it’s worse to be a hypocrite than to be a torturer.
I can reconcile both statements non-hypocritically. Both statements are consistent with a view that the filibuster for purpose of defeating legislation is an evil, but that the solutions proposed for abolishing that evil would introduce the greater evil of quashing meaningful discussion of legislation, and so (at least until a better solution is found) the lesser evil of the obstructive filibuster must be tolerated.
Is this actually the view held by Common Cause? I don’t know; I’m not a member of that group. But it is a possible view which could lead rationally and non-hypocritically to both of the statements quoted in the OP.
Just for the record, is Bush calling American WWII POWS who were water-boarded liars?
No. I’m saying two things:
-
Bush’s statement is not a lie. This rebuts “lying to the American people about torture.” You may argue that Bush tortured, and this is worse than taking an inconsistent position on filibusters; you cannot argue Bush LIED about torture. He forthrightly acknowledged the acts in question, and he didn’t believe they were torture.
-
To forestall the rebuttal that Bush’s belief was objectively unreasonable, and is therefore a lie of sorts, I pointed out that the Justice Department analyzed the position and agreed with Bush.
And I will now add a third: of what relevance to the thread is the fact that Bush lied about torture? That is, let’s assume it’s true. There are many things worse than taking an inconsistent position on filibusters. Here is an incomplete list:
a. Rape of a child
b. Poisoning a person in your care
c. Arson that results in the death of nuns
d. Forcing an illegal immigrant into prostitution in exchange for not deporting her
e. Dumping toxic waste that leads to 347 instances of terminal cancer
f. Entertaining foolish hijacks in GD threads
g. Abandoning a kitten in an outdoor trash can in subzero weather
h. Lying about having a recent HIV-negative test when you in fact know you’re HIV+ in order to have unprotected anal sex, because you just really like bare flesh on bare flesh
i. Not disclosing to your fiance that you have several outstanding felony arrest warrants
Which of these shall we discuss first?
I suspect actual debate is quite mysterious to you.
Fallacy of equivocation.
Good attempt. But how do you defend the point that the latter position was true even when the former view was espoused? In other words, why didn’t the lesser evil have to be tolerated when the first statement was being made?
Take this sort of nonsense to The BBQ Pit.
Either debate the point of the thread or don’t post to the thread, but do not wander in simply to pick a fight with another poster or hurl insults at third parties.
[ /Moderating ]
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.
Without a genuine context for each statement, you have cited a single variable and made an unsubstantiated claim that it is the substantial reason for the differences of perspective.
(I am not happy with the personal attacks on you in this and similar threads, but I have to say that I find them understandable. I know that you are not trolling, but you are standing before a banner that says “BAITING” in very large letters.)