Heh. Think about what you’re saying. Majorities don’t need to fillibuster. *Those spikes happened when Republicans were blocking bills proposed by the Democratic majority. *
What you might have argued is that there’s a ratchet effect. Once Republicans take over the fillibusters don’t drop to 1960s levels. This is indeed the case. Which is why when Republicans shatter institutional mores, it matters.
Wow. I hadn’t thought of this example. Barney Frank: Unfortunately, from the very beginning – look, look at the contrast. George Bush came to us on the Democratic side in late '08 and said, we’re in a crisis, we need your help – and we gave it to him, very openly, very fully. Then Obama comes in to try to deal with the terrible situation he inherited from bush and the republican media went into full partisan attack. [Senate Republican Leader] Mitch McConnell announcing his number one goal was to defeat the president. http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/barney-frank-in-crisis-time-dems-worked-with
Turn the clock back. It’s 2008: the financial markets are in a tailspin. GWBush’s conservative Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson understood the economy. He knew that TARP was as necessary as it was deeply unpopular. Leaders met. Paulson knew he couldn’t possibly get strong support from the Republican side of the aisle: there were too many nuts, too many cowards. So he needed to appeal to responsible members of both parties.
Henry Paulson, formerly of Goldman Sachs, fell to his knees and begged. Don’t break the deal.
Barney Frank delivered. And IIRC, more Democrats voted to save Bush’s and America’s hide than Republicans. This despite the fact that the rescue package was certainly not a very progressive one: the banks got bailed out without being forced to give the taxpayer a share of the upside. That’s what happens when plutocrats run the show. (What else should they be called?)
Was Democratic cooperation a good idea? Perhaps, perhaps not. But nobody, nobody could call them obstructionists. And yet three short months later, the Republicans decide to go crazy before Obama has proposed a single bill, a single measure. Those are the kind of men that we’re dealing with.
h/t Kevin Drum
Yes. All of those spikes are Republicans filibustering Democratic-controlled Congresses. Was that your point?
Hey OMG, thanks for pointing out how starkly Republican obstruction stands out, rather than being a “both sides do it proposition.”
I think that’s right, Democrats don’t obstruct as much as Republicans. But the recent period has to be taken into context. As Mitch McConnell said, the 2010 election was a “national restraining order” on the President and the Democrats. I think his interpretation is spot on. So it’s understandable that right now Republicans would try to stop Democrats.
But it should also be pointed out that the Senate hasn’t so much been obstructed by Republicans as Harry Reid just doesn’t want to take any tough votes or even consider bills passed by the House.
There’s also no excuse for not doing a budget. Those can’t be filibustered.
Is it fair then to criticize Obama for what he didn’t get done, when they worked tireless to stop him? Does Lucy blame Charlie Brown for not kicking the football?
Depends on what we’re talking about. Some things the President can do on his own. Other times the President could get part of what he wants fairly easily. And there are other things that Republicans would like to give him, such as tax and regulatory reform. But they don’t know what he’ll accept and they aren’t going to eliminate all kinds of deductions only to have him veto it and claim to be standing up for middle class families.
The only obstruction of theirs I find inexcusable is on his appointees.
So they’re projecting him to be just as untrustworthy as they are? You may be right, but if so, you’re calling your own guys childish,aren’t you?
I noticed you are be deliberately vague. Why did Republicans obstruct his jobs bill, other than it would have been popular and an issue they didn’t want to have to campaign against in November?
They obstructed his jobs bill because it was a bad jobs bill, dedicated mainly to adding to state government payrolls.
Republicans even got Tester and Nelson to vote with them. Tester especially is turning into quite the anti-Obama guy. Of course, it is an election year. He’ll go back to his old ways if he wins but for now, he’s effectively part of the GOP caucus.
So does that mean that, given the state of things since the House flipped, you think it should be given back to the Dems since the Republicans have failed?
“In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts”
that’s up to the voters to decide. They may very well decide Republicans have failed.
This is one of those elections where anything can happen. Democrats could emerge with control of everything, Republicans could emerge with control of everything. it’ll all come down to what the swing voters think and how motivated the 2008 new Democratic voters are.
You cannot use evidence to counter somebody’s feelings.
But he implied that Obama should be dumped for that reason, so I’m asking him if he thinks the same about the House Republicans.
Obama didn’t consult Democrats when he made that offer, making it a non-starter. We know, because they complained about it.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-08/politics/congress.entitlements_1_social-security-entitlement-house-democrats?_s=PM:POLITICS
Since there are not enough votes to pass such a compromise without Senate Democrats, the offer was clearly intended to be rejected. The President just wanted to look reasonable. A real offer would have been written down and backed by the Senate leadership. the President does not have the authority to make legislative deals on his own.
Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Massachusetts, said he was caught off guard when he learned the White House was proposing major entitlement reforms as part of a debt limit deal. “All of the sudden, I read this in the paper two days ago that this in on the table and someone is going to come up with a reform in a weekend?” he said.
That doesn’t sound like a serious offer, one that Congressmen find out about by reading it in the paper.
I had no idea! I deeply apologize.
I think Obama has failed. But if the voters disagree, am I smarter than they are? Not really.
Now if romney loses on a technicality, like winning the popular vote or losing because Virgil Goode took 3% in Virginia, then I’ll feel differently, but if Romney gets legitimately beat then obviously the public endorses Barack Obama.
Failed to do what? People need to define measures of success when they throw around words like failure.
Okay.
My question was still for him, and it’s about the House Republicans, and whether he applies the same standard to them that he does to Obama.
Virgil Goode finally did something useful.