Dear Republicans: This Is Not How Democracy Works!

[kaylasdad99]

@Bricker

There’s nothing either misleading or an outright lie in what I typed.

Please identify the statements you claim are lies.

Well, it could be that you really do want to put words into the OP’s mouth, and you’re lying about that…

[LonesomePolecat]

@Lobohan

We’re not smarter than you. We just don’t believe the lies that your news sources tell you. Your entire world-view is based on misinformation and outright fabrication.

You’re a victim, not stupid.

Well, I don’t know what sources you’re referring to. I get my news mostly from the radio and the internet, and the sources can range from *The Economist *to *Al Jazeera *to The Times of India, as well as all kinds of websites out on the religious and political fringe. I wander into some very strange places sometimes.

[Lobohan]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

Not really. There was talk of eliminating the filibuster when both chambers and the President were under Democratic control, and this was only two years ago. Surely, Barry and Harry and Nancy saw the which way the wind was blowing with respect to the loyal opposition, but still opted to keep it untouched (likely because they know they’ll find it useful in the future).

If this is such an important issue, they can require the filibuster to take place and do a little log-rolling to get the GOP to break ranks. Or paint the party as obstructionist to get some public pressure on them. All of which would be a good result. But it’s not a constitutional crisis.

I respectfully disagree. Remember, the Senate is populated by two senators for each state.

That means that any 40 Senators can veto anything at all forever. That means that 11% of the US population can control how we are governed.

The states are supposed to have equal power in the Senate, but this leverages it way out of balance and puts the Senate above the other branches.

[kaylasdad99]

@Lobohan

Even as much as Dems hated Bush, they didn’t obstruct him as much. Does that bother you?

Not to answer for Danny Tanner’s bete noir, but it bugs the CRAP out of me. I’d have happily filibustered GWB having breakfast every morning, let alone everything on his legislative agenda.

[kaylasdad99]

Anybody see a recess appointment happening?

[Zeriel]

@LonesomePolecat

As the Dems have repeatedly used the filibuster themselves, and it is very plain that they have no problem with nullifying majority rule when it suits they’re political convenience, there is no need to take them seriously when they appeal to the principle of majority rule to invalidate a Republican filibuster. That applies in this case.

Two rebuttals:

1. There’s a significant difference between filibustering a vote on a bill and filibustering a vote on an appointed position in an effort to tacitly kill a bill that’s already passed.

2. There’s a significant difference in quantity here. Prior to 1970, almost no one used filibusters. From 1970 to 1990, filibusters were such that there were about 20-25 cloture votes per two-year session. From 1991 to 2000, the average was 50, with a sharp jump up in 1992. From 2001 to 2006, the average was about the same, but due to a steady decrease from the peak in 2000. Since 2007, the average has been 100.

An abrupt doubling of the average number of filibusters in the last two times a Democratic president has been elected strikes me as a symptom of grotesque distortion. And while the last Republican president faced similar numbers to Clinton, that neither explains why A) the Republicans really jump-started this shit in 1992, or why B) they doubled down in 2008.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Zeriel

Two rebuttals:

1. There’s a significant difference between filibustering a vote on a bill and filibustering a vote on an appointed position in an effort to tacitly kill a bill that’s already passed.

2. There’s a significant difference in quantity here. Prior to 1970, almost no one used filibusters. From 1970 to 1990, filibusters were such that there were about 20-25 cloture votes per two-year session. From 1991 to 2000, the average was 50, with a sharp jump up in 1992. From 2001 to 2006, the average was about the same, but due to a steady decrease from the peak in 2000. Since 2007, the average has been 100.

An abrupt doubling of the average number of filibusters in the last two times a Democratic president has been elected strikes me as a symptom of grotesque distortion. And while the last Republican president faced similar numbers to Clinton, that neither explains why A) the Republicans really jump-started this shit in 1992, or why B) they doubled down in 2008.

So, what are you saying? That these milquetoast Democratic senators are in over their heads? I mean, sure, it’s a free country and they can go around saying “Wah, wah, wah, these Republican senators are so mean! And these filibusters are so unfair!” But after a certain point, if they don’t do anything about it, I find it very hard to take that complaint seriously.

[Fear_Itself]

@LonesomePolecat

So basically, you want a one-party state–that is, whoever will not give Democrats whatever they want is evil and must be punished until they submit.

Since this is the charter of the modern Republican Party, I would be fool not to. Game on, bitches.

[Ludovic]

@Zeriel

From 1991 to 2000, the average was 50, with a sharp jump up in 1992.

I read that as “with a shark jump up in 1992”, which is also true.

[Knorf]

@FuriousGeorge

No, I don’t think “Your guys use it more” and “Our guys use it less” is a particularly noteworthy issue or defense. Welcome to modern politics. It’s what the “You’re with us or ag’in’ us” attitude has devolved to. One side is no more or less guilty than the other… and you are a blind partisan hack if you think otherwise.

I’d suggest for your edification that you do a little research into history of the filibuster. The GOP abuse of it set a spectacular new precedent for acrimony and gridlock in politics

[Hamlet]

I think I have Bricker as my Secret Santa this year. Anyone know where I can buy an automated “Tu Quoque” machine?

[Lobohan]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

So, what are you saying? That these milquetoast Democratic senators are in over their heads? I mean, sure, it’s a free country and they can go around saying “Wah, wah, wah, these Republican senators are so mean! And these filibusters are so unfair!” But after a certain point, if they don’t do anything about it, I find it very hard to take that complaint seriously.

So you want Dems to filibuster as much as possible when they get knocked to the minority in the Senate?

You think that’s a reasonable idea? You think that’s how we should run the country? Nothing ever happens, no legislating?

[Lobohan]

@Hamlet

I think I have Bricker as my Secret Santa this year. Anyone know where I can buy an automated “Tu Quoque” machine?

Dude, that’s like buying a Steam Hammer for John Henry.

[FuriousGeorge]

@Knorf

I’d suggest for your edification that you do a little research into history of the filibuster. The GOP abuse of it set a spectacular new precedent for acrimony and gridlock in politics

So you’re gonna stick with the “They did it more defense”. Good call.

[Little_Nemo]

@Bricker

Well, as the New York Times said back in 1995, the filibuster is derailing Clinton’s agenda, and needs to be curtailed.

Of course, they said in 2005 that the filibuster’s existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes when Senate Democrats were using it against Bush’s agenda.

And they said just last month we should end the filibuster.

So let’s just cut to the chase. I don’t wish to put words in the OP’s mouth, but it seems clear that the actual rule favored by the New York Times is: When the Republicans have a majority in the Senate, the Senate shall have a filibuster rule; when the Democrats have the majority, no filibuster rule should exist.

I have no serious problem with the opposing party using filibustering against a president’s agenda. But I object when they use filibustering against a presidential administration. The Republicans haven’t been using opposition to policies; they’re using opposition as a policy.

If Romney or some other Republican gets elected next year, the Republicans in Congress will probably be introducing some of the same laws that they now oppose. Some of the laws they’re opposing now were previously introduced by Republicans. So the objection appears to be against the Democrats being able to enact laws. The Republicans shouldn’t care who enacts a law; if they think it’s a good law, they shouldn’t mind if the Democrats enact it instead of them. To do otherwise means the Republicans are putting the interests of the Republican Party above the interests of the United States.

[kaylasdad99]

Still waiting for an answer to the question of whether there have been any actual filibusters (as opposed to virtual filibusters) in recent years.

[Lobohan]

@kaylasdad99

Still waiting for an answer to the question of whether there have been any actual filibusters (as opposed to virtual filibusters) in recent years.

My understanding is that these are the votes for cloture, not an according to hoyle filibuster. I think Bernie Sanders was the last person to try a reading the phonebook version.

[Bricker]

@Bricker

Yes, and before that, the Democrats were using it more than at any other point in history.

@Lobohan

Is that true?

http://healthcaretrends.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/senate-gridlock1.jpg

Yes. Look at your chart. In 1995-1996, the Democrats used it more than at any other point in prior history.

But then, I imagine, it was OK?

[Lobohan]

@FuriousGeorge

So you’re gonna stick with the “They did it more defense”. Good call.

I’m driving at 60mph. You’re driving at 120mph. Same thing, officer. Nothing to see here.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

Yes. Look at your chart. In 1995-1996, the Democrats used it more than at any other point in history.

How much more? C’mon, I know you can understand this. Work those brain-meats. C’mon!

Note that this was during Clinton’s reign. Also look at Bush’s tenure.