Democrat Obstructionism

[Lobohan]

@magellan01

About 90% of your contribution to any thread is calling other posters stupid. You’re a joke. But since you’re not using it, can I use your head for a mop?

Maybe. Which, I assume, is the closest you’ve ever gotten to getting head.

[elucidator]

Not nlce to make fun of the knob impaired.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

Boehner is trying so hard to point the finger but the public and many republicans know where the blame lies:

In interviews with The Hill, centrist Republicans are conceding that their party — not the Democrats — will be blamed if the critical agency shuts down at the end of the month.

House and Senate Republicans are openly divided over a strategy to fund DHS, a fissure that has produced a round of intraparty fingerpointing at a time when GOP leaders are trying to prove they can govern.

Meanwhile, Democrats are presenting a united front, calling for a so-called “clean” DHS funding bill free of any controversial GOP riders targeting President Obama’s executive immigration actions.

“More likely Republicans will be blamed. We control the House and the Senate,” former Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.) told The Hill on Friday. Americans “know that we caused the last government shutdown, so we have the lasting specter of Ted Cruz hanging over us,” he added.

“Everytime the Republicans think our strategy is gonna work out politically and the president will be seen as the one who has stopped the workings of government, it has not worked that well for us and we have been the ones to blame,” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) said. “So I’m optimistic in these coming days that we can find a way forward.”

GOP leaders seem to have finally settled on a messaging strategy: Blame Senate Democrats… But that strategy has been undermined by fellow Republicans who already appear to be folding their cards: They’ve joined Democrats in calling on Congress to pass a clean DHS bill.

“Ultimately, we are going to be voting on a clean or cleaner DHS appropriations bill,” Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), who is close to Boehner, told The Hill. “And if we don’t get that opportunity, then we’ll vote on a [continuing resolution], which in my view is certainly less desirable than a DHS appropriations bill, though it’s clearly better than a shutdown.”

Freshman GOP Rep. Carlos Curbelo, who represents a heavily Hispanic district in south Florida, has urged his party to pass a clean funding bill, then separately try to tackle immigration reform and border security.

Democrats also have a simpler message in the argument: Pass a clean funding bill. Compare that to Republicans, who must explain to voters back home that Senate Democrats are at fault even though the GOP won control of both chambers of Congress last fall.

“The process and the machinations of it all — sometimes eyes glaze over, sometimes my own eyes glaze over,” freshman Rep. David Young (R-Iowa), a former longtime Senate staffer, told The Hill. “But the explanation is we’ve done our job in the House and things need to move forward in the Senate.”

Still, Young, who represents a swing district in southwest Iowa, wouldn’t rule out backing a clean bill.

“It may come to that, but let’s see if we can get something out of it first,” he said. ((The Hill

That last sentence - “let’s see if we can get something out of it” - is why most people who are blaming the republicans (and they are blaming the republicans) - have a good reason to.

[Merneith]

@Terr

So the huge majority of Democrats voting against the “clean” bill to fund DHS short term - is apparently not a “political game” but responsible behavior?

Try to sell that to the public.

The first extension would have passed if the Republicans had voted for it. There were only fifty Pubs who voted no - they only needed twenty of them to pass this. Boehner certainly thought he had the votes to get the first extension passed or he wouldn’t have brought the bill to the floor. The fact that his own party clowned him is what makes it’s not Dem obstructionism.

Not quite as embarrassing as McConnell having to scuttle a bill he himself proposed, but certainly right up there.

At any rate, the Republicans now have another week’s worth of rope to play with. And of course, the looming shut down news is going to contrast with what they thought was going to be a massive national security coup by letting Bibi make a stump speech here. Hope they enjoy it!

[Merneith]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

:That last sentence - “let’s see if we can get something out of it” - is why most people who are blaming the republicans (and they are blaming the republicans) - have a good reason to.

You saw this same thinking in the last shutdown. Republicans were furious that they couldn’t get even a little taste of a bone for all the trouble they caused. They really are no different than hostage-taking terrorists. Their refusal to compromise and work with their opponents is a genuine danger to our nation.

[magellan01]

@Lobohan

Maybe. Which, I assume, is the closest you’ve ever gotten to getting head.

:rolleyes:That’s patently untrue. Just ask your mother. Yukyukyukyukyuk.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

That’s the thing. The public is onto these things and doesn’t approve. The GOP actually promised to stop putting riders into “Must Pass” legislation and PolitiFact called it a broken promise.

Democrats are guilty of this too and I hate it no matter who does it. But Democrats didn’t shut down the government over let’s-kill-Obamacare riders so while both sides do it, the Republicans seem to enjoy using it like one might play Russian Roulette.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Terr

Let’s say you’re a principled politician (a rare bird but let’s stipulate). You know, one that swore to uphold and defend the Constitution and actually meant it. There is an executive order you think is blatantly unconstitutional. You’re about to vote on a bill that funds that executive order. How do you vote?

You have to weigh the relative harm. And in this case, you have the certainty of a shutdown of a government agency vs an executive order that some believe to be unconstitutional. And this bill doesn’t fund the executive order. It’s been stayed until its constitutionality can be determined, hasn’t it? If the court finds it unconstitutional it goes bye bye. If the court says its constitutional, then it’s constitutional, even if it sucks and you don’t like it.

[BobLibDem]

@Terr

Let’s say you’re a principled politician (a rare bird but let’s stipulate). You know, one that swore to uphold and defend the Constitution and actually meant it. There is an executive order you think is blatantly unconstitutional. You’re about to vote on a bill that funds that executive order. How do you vote?

Gee, if only we had a branch of government that determined whether an executive action was constitutional, then the Congress wouldn’t need to base its votes on the members’ interpretation thereof.

[elucidator]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

… the Republicans seem to enjoy using it like one might play Russian Roulette.

They are modern, and up to date, they play Russian Roulette with an automatic.

[Terr]

@Captain_Amazing

You have to weigh the relative harm. And in this case, you have the certainty of a shutdown of a government agency vs an executive order that some believe to be unconstitutional. And this bill doesn’t fund the executive order. It’s been stayed until its constitutionality can be determined, hasn’t it? If the court finds it unconstitutional it goes bye bye. If the court says its constitutional, then it’s constitutional, even if it sucks and you don’t like it.

It’s not some believe. It’s you, the politician, who believe that. And yes, this bil does fund the executive order. The stay is temporary, and even with the stay, Obama has been making noises that the stay is only effective in the states that that particular federal court covers.

And you have to weigh “the relative harm”? To hell with principles, right?

[Terr]

@BobLibDem

Gee, if only we had a branch of government that determined whether an executive action was constitutional, then the Congress wouldn’t need to base its votes on the members’ interpretation thereof.

That’s not an answer to my question.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Terr

And you have to weigh “the relative harm”? To hell with principles, right?

I’d never say to hell with principles. But one of my principles is that, if you’re trying to find a solution to a problem, it probably shouldn’t be one that makes things worse. And it seems to me that refusing to fund a government department that keeps us safe from terrorism, does customs inspections, and for that matter, keeps illegal immigrants out of the country, just because it’s also funding one program, currently in the courts, that I think is unconstitutional, is making things worse.

[RTFirefly]

@Terr

Yes. Good luck trying “the sky is falling” routine over FCC defunding, BTW.

And the point of this would be…?

Because the FCC has already voted. Their decision is now the law, unless and until the courts overturn it. Shutting down the FCC would be just a spite move, that’s all, giving a regulatory agency a whack in the head for regulating in a way the GOP dislikes, while leaving the regulation in place.

If the GOP wants to do a very blatant dick move like that, by all means, they should go ahead and do it.

[BrainGlutton]

@Terr

And you have to weigh “the relative harm”? To hell with principles, right?

“Deport the immigrants” – and this is about that, not about separation of powers – ain’t no principle.

[RTFirefly]

@Terr

Let’s say you’re a principled politician (a rare bird but let’s stipulate). You know, one that swore to uphold and defend the Constitution and actually meant it. There is an executive order you think is blatantly unconstitutional. You’re about to vote on a bill that funds that executive order. How do you vote?

Unlike some of the others, I think that Congress should take into account the likely Constitutionality of its actions, and the Executive actions it funds, in making its decisions.

But if you’re the hypothetical principled Congresscritter, you are undoing your principles if you just go with your gut, or with one side’s (or your own, for that matter) superficial and/or slanted analysis of an actions Constitutionality, in determining your course of action. You can’t just say to yourself, “look at what the President is doing unilaterally - that couldn’t possibly be Constitutional.” You have to know whether the courts have issued decisions that say the President has that power directly under the Constitution, or whether Congress has passed legislation giving him that power.

In the case of immigration, preceding Congresses have apparently passed laws giving the President rather extensive powers with respect to immigration. It’s both Constitutional and legal for the President to use those powers, unless that past legislation itself were to be found unconstitutional.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

Never mind… I have to go drink some coffee…

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

That’s the thing. The public is onto these things and doesn’t approve. The GOP actually promised to stop putting riders into “Must Pass” legislation and PolitiFact called it a broken promise.

Democrats are guilty of this too and I hate it no matter who does it. But Democrats didn’t shut down the government over let’s-kill-Obamacare riders so while both sides do it, the Republicans seem to enjoy using it like one might play Russian Roulette.

Have to quote myself because I came across a Republican senator who agrees with me:

Sen. Mark Kirk made a plea to his Republican colleagues on on Friday after the Senate passed a yearlong funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

“Hopefully we’re gonna end the attaching of bullshit to essential items of the government,” the Illinois Republican, who’s up for reelection in 2016, told reporters in the Capitol.

“In the long-run, if you are blessed with the majority, you’re blessed with the power to govern. If you’re gonna govern, you have to act responsibly,” Kirk said.

Bonus points for using the word “bullshit.”

[D_Anconia]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Have to quote myself because I came across a Republican senator who agrees with me:Bonus points for using the word “bullshit.”

Do you have a reliable cite for that quote? TPM doesn’t cut it.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@D_Anconia

Do you have a reliable cite for that quote? TPM doesn’t cut it.

Then don’t believe it. What makes you think I care what you believe?

In any event, here’s a similar article from The Hill which says the same thing only sans the word “bullshit,” which changes his point exactly zero:

“I think this is a battle that Republicans should have never fought — junking up a DHS bill, especially when we get a threat against the Mall of America,” Kirk said following a Senate GOP conference lunch.

“I think the feeling of most people is this is the fight that we should have not fought,” Kirk said. “We really, as a governing party, we’ve got to fund DHS and say to the House, ‘Here’s a straw so you can suck it up.’”

Kirk warned Republicans to never again tie controversial riders to must-pass spending bills that affect U.S. national security.

“I would say this battle should be the end of the strategy of attaching whatever you’re upset at the president [about] to a vital piece of government. I would be, in the future, strongly arguing that if it’s a vital piece of the government … the strategy of sticking whatever you’re interested in sticking Obama on should end now.”

Incidentally, “‘Here’s a straw so you can suck it up” is possibly even better than “bullshit.”