# The obstructionist-GOP narrative... can we test/prove it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 31, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071 "2014-08-31T20:15:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/161 "2014-09-04T03:16:33Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I know that Reid runs a tight ship. I also know that the people the GOP elects will poison pill anything they get a chance at. So, I see why keeping a tight rein on amendments is a good idea. > > I don’t subscribe to the WSJ, because it’s owned by a crazy person, but what I could read of that story is here: "The U.S. Senate failed to advance another piece of popular bipartisan legislation late Monday, and the reason tells the real story of Washington gridlock in the current Congress. To wit, Harry Reid has essentially shut down the Senate as a place to debate and vote on policy. > > The Majority Leader’s strategy was once again on display as the Senate failed to get the 60 votes to move a popular energy efficiency bill co-sponsored by New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Ohio Republican Rob Portman. Mr. Reid blamed the…" > > A question, why is it taking 60 votes? Shouldn’t 51 do it? The next paragraph in the article was: "Mr. Reid blamed the defeat on Republican partisanship. But the impasse really came down to Mr. Reid’s blockade against amendments that might prove politically difficult for Democrats. The Nevadan used parliamentary tricks to block energy-related amendments to an energy bill. This blockade is now standard procedure as he’s refused to allow a vote on all but nine GOP amendments since last July. Mr. Reid is worried that some of these amendments might pass with support from Democrats, thus embarrassing a White House that opposes them." No amendments allowed - no simple majority votes. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/162 "2014-09-04T03:18:46Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > [http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304081804579560251530777852](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304081804579560251530777852) > > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/08/04/harry-reids-reign-of-paralysis/](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/08/04/harry-reids-reign-of-paralysis/) > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/politics/reids-uncompromising-power-play-in-senate-rankles-republicans.html?ref=us&\_r=1](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/politics/reids-uncompromising-power-play-in-senate-rankles-republicans.html?ref=us&_r=1) > > Pretending that you don’t know about Reid’s authoritarianism in the Senate is pathetic. You didn’t have the other two when I responded. The second one is another partisan spleen venting, and the third, says that Reid’s amendments are in line with previous congresses. “In his time as leader, he has allowed votes on almost 95 Republican amendments a year, 75 percent of the total. That is fewer than former Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee gave Democrats when he was majority leader — 117, or 76 percent — but more than Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi gave minority Democrats, 90 votes a year, 54 percent of the total.” It seems to me that this is a defensive play to counter the narrative that the GOP is obstructionist. Accusing your opponent of having your fault. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/163 "2014-09-04T03:19:49Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The next paragraph in the article was: > > "Mr. Reid blamed the defeat on Republican partisanship. But the impasse really came down to Mr. Reid’s blockade against amendments that might prove politically difficult for Democrats. > > The Nevadan used parliamentary tricks to block energy-related amendments to an energy bill. This blockade is now standard procedure as he’s refused to allow a vote on all but nine GOP amendments since last July. Mr. Reid is worried that some of these amendments might pass with support from Democrats, thus embarrassing a White House that opposes them." > > No amendments allowed - no simple majority votes. But why is it sixty votes? Shouldn’t it be 51? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/164 "2014-09-04T03:27:26Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The second one is another partisan spleen venting, and the third, says that Reid’s amendments are in line with previous congresses. Only of you didn’t read further explanation. Which you did, but didn’t mention, did you? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/165 "2014-09-04T03:28:28Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > But why is it sixty votes? Shouldn’t it be 51? For the exact same reason why there is no amendments voting allowed. Shouldn’t they be? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/166 "2014-09-04T03:34:31Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Only of you didn’t read further explanation. Which you did, but didn’t mention, did you? Feel free to post it. I didn’t want to copy the whole article. It sums up to, the GOP claiming that some of the amendments don’t count. And the Dems claim they do. The fact is, that some amendments are being had. But what you need to look at, is this is why is the number sixty? You’re claiming that Reid is draconian and obstructionist, when he’s dealing with obstructionism that is presumptive. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/167 "2014-09-04T03:38:46Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > For the exact same reason why there is no amendments voting allowed. Shouldn’t they be? Reid is allowing amendments. Saying he isn’t isn’t honest. He’s allowing more than Trent Lott, unless you don’t count the ones the GOP doesn’t want to count, because they were for non-binding amendments. Even if you don’t count those, he’s allowing 3 percent less than Trent Lott. How can you honestly say he’s not allowing amendments? Painting him as obstructionist, when the GOP is creating a 60 vote threshold for anything of substance that they don’t agree with a hundred percent is a stretch. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/168 "2014-09-04T03:41:00Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Feel free to post it. I didn’t want to copy the whole article. Democrats say Republicans were given 74 amendment votes last year, 68 percent of the total. But half of them came over one grueling 24-hour marathon, when the Senate voted on 37 nonbinding advisory amendments to the Senate budget last spring. Absent those votes, Republicans were given 37 votes last year, 51 percent of the total. And Senate votes are trending downward. Exempting nonbinding budget amendments, total amendment votes reached 218 in 2007, Mr. Reid’s first year in control, to 175 in 2009, to 123 in 2012, to 67 last year, by Reid staff calculations. Since mid-July, Republicans have gotten four amendment votes. > [@](#): > > But what you need to look at, is this is why is the number sixty? You’re claiming that Reid is draconian and obstructionist, when he’s dealing with obstructionism that is presumptive. The number is sixty because the rules allow it. Reid is not allowing voting on amendments for exactly the same reason - the rules allow it. If one is “obstructionism”, so is the other. Hope that clears it up for you. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/169 "2014-09-04T03:42:16Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Reid is allowing amendments. Saying he isn’t isn’t honest. Republicans also don’t filibuster \*\*every \*\*vote. Saying they do isn’t honest. Same difference. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/170 "2014-09-04T03:44:54Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Democrats say Republicans were given 74 amendment votes last year, 68 percent of the total. But half of them came over one grueling 24-hour marathon, when the Senate voted on 37 nonbinding advisory amendments to the Senate budget last spring. > > Absent those votes, Republicans were given 37 votes last year, 51 percent of the total. And Senate votes are trending downward. Exempting nonbinding budget amendments, total amendment votes reached 218 in 2007, Mr. Reid’s first year in control, to 175 in 2009, to 123 in 2012, to 67 last year, by Reid staff calculations. Since mid-July, Republicans have gotten four amendment votes. > The number is sixty because the rules allow it. Reid is not allowing voting on amendments for exactly the same reason - the rules allow it. If one is “obstructionism”, so is the other. Hope that clears it up for you. Reid is allowing amendments at a rate higher than Trent Lott (unless you ignore half of them which are non binding, then he is allowing amendments at a rate 3% less than Trent Lott). He is doing this when the GOP are obstructing via filibuster at a historic rate. They are also, more highly motivated to poison pill anything they can get away with. Equating the two sides here is nonsense. One is allowing a typical amount of amendments, and the other is demanding a historically large amount of 60 vote thresholds. You’re simply wrong. I’m not trying to dig at you, but there is no way to read this as Reid being the obstructive force in the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/171 "2014-09-04T03:47:32Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Reid is allowing amendments at a rate higher than Trent Lott Again, only if you count amendments that don’t matter. And certainly not in the last couple of years. > [@](#): > > They are also, more highly motivated to poison pill anything they can get away with. If by “poison pill” you mean make Democrats vote on things that are uncomfortable to them, then yes. Why should that be prevented from happening? > [@](#): > > You’re simply wrong. I’m not trying to dig at you, but there is no way to read this as Reid being the obstructive force in the Senate. You’re simply wrong. But I didn’t expect to convince you. Partisan blinders are a powerful thing. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/172 "2014-09-04T03:47:18Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Republicans also don’t filibuster \*\*every \*\*vote. Saying they do isn’t honest. Same difference. Do they filibuster 3% more than the Dems did? Wouldn’t that be equally obstructive? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/173 "2014-09-04T03:49:42Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Again, only if you count amendments that don’t matter. And certainly not in the last couple of years. > If by “poison pill” you mean make Democrats vote on things that are uncomfortable to them, then yes. Why should that be prevented from happening? > You’re simply wrong. But I didn’t expect to convince you. Partisan blinders are a powerful thing. 3% less than Trent Lott. That number is if you discount the ones the GOP says don’t count. 3% less. Say it with me. How much more do the GOP force a 60 vote threshold? Is it more than 3%? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/174 "2014-09-04T03:54:08Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > 3% less than Trent Lott. To begin with. Certainly less than that in the last couple of years. Say it with me. So - you keep asking why not 51 votes. I will ask you - why not allow voting on Republican amendments? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/175 "2014-09-04T12:55:16Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > From just one of the links: > > If it’s impossible for contaminants to leak, how did synthetic compounds get into the water? Come on, your better than this. This is a hijack, I suppose, but why should I leave it unanswered? [From here:](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6071/898.full) > [@](#): > > A major review of fracking—the controversial practice of pumping fluids into tight shale formations to release natural gas—uncovered no direct evidence that it is contaminating groundwater. The review, released at the meeting, suggests that problems that have been attributed to fracking tend to occur closer to the surface, when gas and drilling fluid escape from poorly lined wells or storage ponds. Charles Groat, a former director of the U.S. Geological Survey who led the study, said that the $380,000 report was conducted only with university funds. Groat, now at the University of Texas, Austin, and four UT colleagues found no evidence of drilling fluids leaking deep underground and concluded that methane in water wells in some areas probably comes from natural sources. > > The review acknowledges that gaps remain in understanding fracking, including whether pumping wastewater into the ground causes small earthquakes. In addition, the cumulative and long-term impacts of the technique remain unclear, especially in areas where some gas naturally escapes from below ground. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/176 "2014-09-04T12:56:26Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > To begin with. Certainly less than that in the last couple of years. Say it with me. > > So - you keep asking why not 51 votes. I will ask you - why not allow voting on Republican amendments? Because the Republican amendments are BAD. When you start from that premise, then it’s easy to justify. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/177 "2014-09-04T13:48:45Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > What I’m trying to say (and I’m not sure I’m correct here, but it feels correct) is that there are fewer reasons to propose a law than to oppose a law. Generally speaking, if you propose a law, it’s something you want. It might be a stronger version than you think you can actually get in order to establish a bargaining position, and it might be something that you’re mainly floating out there as a trial balloon, but if you propose laws that you actually do NOT want, then (a) you risk them passing, and (b) you risk people (understandably) thinking that you want things you don’t. > > On the other hand, in a divided political system, there’s at least one VERY obvious reason to vote against a law that your opposition proposes, even if you’d at some level be perfectly happy with it, which is to deny whoever proposed it a victory. > > In other words, if A proposes a law and B votes it down, there are 4 possibilities: > (1) A genuinely supports it, B genuinely opposes it > (2) A doesn’t actually support it, B genuinely opposes it > (3) A genuinely supports it, B would actually like it, but is opposing it for reasons other than actual disagreement with the proposition > (4) A doesn’t actually support it, B would actually like it, but is opposing it for reasons other than actual disagreement with the proposition > > I’m claiming that in a vacuum, (3) is generally more plausible than (2). I think I might agree with parts of this and disagree with other parts, but I’m not sure of the context for the same reason I don’t understand why you’re posting this altogether. I simply don’t understand what this has to do with what we’re discussing, and don’t see where this ties in to anything. (I’m aware that “opposing things that you really agree with” is part of the obstructionist strategy that people are attributing to the Republicans, but that’s not an aspect of the issue that I’ve been addressing.) > [@](#): > > Sure there is. There’s a HUGE difference between “the filibuster is something that we use on very rare occasions when we feel VERY morally compelled to do so” and “the filibuster is something that we use routinely”. It’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise. In theory there’s a difference. But that’s not what we’re discussing in this thread. What we’re discussing here is whether there’s an objective way to measure obstructionism. And here my point is that introducing entirely new tactics is a far better measure than expanded use of the old ones. > [@](#): > > I agree that that’s a possibility. And if we go back to the original point of this thread, it’s probably at least vaguely possible to get an objective count of filibusters. It’s probably much harder to make a curve of “level of moderateness of proposals by democrats in congress over the years” that we could compare to that first curve, but it’s not necessarily impossible… I think it’s probably impossible. > [@](#): > > IF we agree that the basic sequence of events was: > (1) republicans started filibustering at an unprecedented rate > (2) democrats then seriously mulled using the nuclear option (and, if I recall correctly, used it in the limited context of judicial appointments, or something like that) > > Then yes, there are two basic explanations: > (A) Republicans became far more obstructionist > (B) Democrats became far less moderate > (Or obviously some of each) > > Do you agree that (1) and (2) actually happened? If so, we can start discussing which of (A) or (B) better explains it. And the whole point of this thread is to discuss whether we can come up with some actual EVIDENCE to let us choose between (A) and (B), rather than just falling back to our usual squabbling. (Evidence of how true (1) is is also welcome in this thread, as there still seems to be some dispute as to how true that is.) (And of course, filibusters aren’t the be-all and end-all of obstructionism.) I disagree with (1) to the extent that “started filibustering at an unprecedented rate” implies a break in what was otherwise a steady state situation. (Republicans actually mulled using the nuclear option in response to Democratic filibustering of Bush judicial appointments, but a deal was brokered. The Democrats actually used it.) ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/178 "2014-09-04T15:55:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because the Republican amendments are BAD. > > When you start from that premise, then it’s easy to justify. Would you characterize a 3% increase in blocking amendments (taking the Republican number as gospel just 'cause as well as relying on **Lobohan** ’s math as I can’t be bothered to double check it) as something that supports your theory that Democrats just think all Republican amendments are “BAD”? It seems to me that Democrats and Republicans are near parity on this particular issue and I’m at a loss to explain why it was even brought up if the numbers are truly this close. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/179 "2014-09-04T16:11:52Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > Would you characterize a 3% increase in blocking amendments (taking the Republican number as gospel just 'cause as well as relying on **Lobohan** ’s math as I can’t be bothered to double check it) as something that supports your theory that Democrats just think all Republican amendments are “BAD”? It seems to me that Democrats and Republicans are near parity on this particular issue and I’m at a loss to explain why it was even brought up if the numbers are truly this close. They are not this close. [http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/206733-an-imperial-majority-leader-reid-trumps-forebears-power](http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/206733-an-imperial-majority-leader-reid-trumps-forebears-power) “Sen. Reid has actively assumed the role far in excess of that assumed by previous majority leaders. That is to be a traffic cop over the amendment process either to police amendments by allowing those he deems acceptable for consideration by the Senate or to bar amendments altogether,” said Martin Gold, an expert on congressional procedure who served former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker (R-Tenn.) and Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). “He has engaged in that practice\*\* more than twice as frequently as all previous majority leaders combined,\*\*” Gold said. Experts say the Senate rules do not formally empower Reid to block colleagues from offering amendments to bills and steering the course of the political debate. Instead, Reid has made extensive use of the precedent set by Vice President John Nance Garner, a Democrat, who as president of the Senate, granted the majority leader the right of first recognition on the floor. The five-term senator has used that right of recognition to repeatedly fill the available slots or amendments to various bills, a process known as filling the tree, leaving colleagues no opportunities to offer their own ideas. It is amazing to see people denying reality about Reid. It is common knowledge that he has basically frozen out all Republican activity in the Senate. That’s not something controversial - it is widely known and accepted. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071/180 "2014-09-04T16:19:34Z")
How many of those proposed Republican amendments were something other than “Repeal Obamacare”, though? At some point the grownups have to send the kids to bed and get to work. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-obstructionist-gop-narrative-can-we-test-prove-it/697071.md?page=10)