This discussion is personal enough already. Please refrain from any more comments like this one.
Translation, you got nothing.
Republicans, such as yourself voted and rooted for a torturing lying hypocrite.
Further it’s good when you tu quoque, but bad when others do it. This isn’t the very hypocrisy you’re rallying against how?
Weren’t you warned about this shit once already?
It was?
Not entertaining any additional discussions of this topic.
Sorry if I was unclear, this particular bill was obviously introduced while the Democrats control the Senate, but Harkin introduced similar legislation when the Democrats were in the minority in the past.
This misses the larger point that Common Cause was commenting on two very different proposals to change the filibuster.
Hardly. He said concerns about hypocrisy are overblown. The two quotes also say it’s no big deal. Nobody was praising hypocrisy - merely dismissing those who choose to dwell on it.
As for the filibuster (in its current form of the mere threat of filibuster), I’d say it’s evolved into a mechanism both parties find useful at the same time. The majority party can claim to be stymied (thus avoiding the responsibility of passing controversial legislation) and heap blame on the minority party. Similarly, the minority party can proudly claim to have stymied the majority party, and no individual need be singled out for praise or scorn by being the one standing there for 18 hours in a row reciting lists of recipes or other irrelevancies, as the filibuster used to entail.
It may have too far, in the sense the all legislation can now be blocked, but if the American people are okay with that, I guess more power to 'em.
A non-partisan ‘good government’ group founded by a Republican.
If he did, I can’t find it using thomas.loc.gov and any search terms I can think of.
Can you help me? What exactly did he introduce, and when?
I’m not especially interested in this common cause or what they think or whether or not they’re hypocritical. I’m mostly addressing the idea that if you approved of fillibusters then, and don’t now, you’re a hypocrite.
Now you can do your rules lawyering thing and say the debate is specifically and only about common cause (even though it’s obvious you’re trying to imply a more general conclusion), but more generally I think the assumption you’re trying to push across has been demonstrated to be flawed. One can oppose procedural fillibusters used for anything and everything while still supporting the notion of being able to occasionally yank out a real fillibuster on a critical issue without being hypocritical or partisan.
Incidentally, I skimmed over the linked PDF and it doesn’t seem to necesarily be drawing a stand, but examining the history. There’s no “therefore it should be abolished” type statement. Which isn’t to say that’s what they’re going for, but I don’t think the PDF alone makes that case.
I’ve got my hands full with a four month old, so I’m not at my research best, but this article references it being in 1995
I’ll try to find a better reference later
That is totally cool! Can anyone do that? Say, if they’re getting their ass handed to them, they can just say “Not entertaining any additional discussions of this topic.”? So then it becomes a draw, or do you automatically win?
Maybe Roberto Duran should have done that, instead of saying something wimpy like “No mas. No mas.”, he could have said “Not entertaining any additional kicking of my ass.”
Or how about Custer? “Not entertaining any additional arrows lodged into my ignorant white hide! (SSSsssssss-thunk!) Damn, that hurts, motherfuck!..(SSSsssssss-thunk!)…hey, cut it out, I just called ‘Not entertaining any additional arrows’, don’t you guys know the rules?..”
Or the Black Knight?
“No, my arms not chopped off, its just a scratch, and besides, I’m not entertaining any observations about alleged amputations…”
I just searched on the word “cloture” in Senate Bills from 1993-1997, and found nothing from Harkin.
Anyone is entitled to ignore hijacks and stick to the thread topic, yes.
And I automatically win.
I want to clarify something:
Are you conceding that there is a valid argument that one can support the use of a fillibuster in one manner (sparingly, and for important stuff, as it has generally been used in the past) and also oppose it being used as a method of requiring every bill to get 60 votes? Without being hypocritical?
If so, is your further argument simply that while it’s possible to hold this case, Common Cause does not, and their motivations are strictly partisan?
And if so - would you grant that your gotcha-ya only extends specifically to the position of Common Cause, and isn’t an attempt to paint anyone holding the aforementioned non-hypocritical stance on the fillibuster more generally in a negative light?
Absolutely.
Not my further argument, but my initial, from the get-go argument. Yes.
Yes, and I don’t see what I typed above could support any conclusion OTHER than this.
Great. Then we’re back to either “here’s the explanation for Common Cause’s position that you neglected to mention, therefore their view is consistent” or “Who the hell cares about Common Cause?” - whichever you prefer.
I’d like to reiterate that I don’t know, nor particularly care, about that organization. They may be purely and blindly partisan and hypocritical for all I know, although their explanation for the change of heart sounds reasonable. I’m only in here to argue that you were missing a key point - that you can have differing opinions on the use of the fillibuster if it’s used significantly differently by either party without being blindly partisan.
I do kind of wonder what the purpose of this thread is, actually. *Assuming *they’re completely hypocritical… uh, so what? Most of us have never heard of this organization, and it doesn’t really speak for us. Are we supposed to decry hypocrisy any time it rears its ugly head, no matter how minor or inconsequential the source? Is the existence of one hypocritical organization supposed to imply that the entire side is hypocritical?
Yes, because there is a direct line equivalency between the hypocrisy of every nominally progressive group anf the hypocrisy of Republican office holders and nominees.