GOP is Filibustering Hagel nomination

[HomerJS]

# of nominations that needed to be filibustered: 0. 0 for 0. So that stat says absolutely nothing.

IYO.

Meanwhile God forbid someone used the word Jewish sometime in their life or some asshole Senator (rhymes w/booze) makes the "when did you stop beating your wife" accusation and this warrants a fillibuster???

 

[PokerGuy]

And if right-winger extremists define anyone who is not right-wing enough as "lousy/ideological/incompetent", then it's a "good thing" by definition!

They can't lose!

Oh, the ironing. You assert that the higher number of filibusters is automatically a bad thing based on the assumption that they are not legitimately using them to block bad nominations/legislation, then turn around and complain that someone else assumes that they might be needed and perfectly legitimate. :biggrin:

Bottom line, more or less filibusters doesn't mean anything by itself.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Bottom line, more or less filibusters doesn't mean anything by itself.

Wrong.

It only "doesn't mean anything" IF you start off with the assumption that Republican filibusters are somehow more justified than Democratic ones.

So, what's the evidence to support that? Nothing. It's just your personal opinion that "more lousy / ideological / incompetent people are being nominated for positions".

Which is saying that Republican filibusters are more justified than Democratic ones by definition, solely because Republican filibusters are more consonant with your political views than Democratic ones.

Or, more simply put -- you're a hack.

 

[PokerGuy]

So you claim the filibuster is a tool to protect the American people and yet here it is being used to protect the GOP. You list some other stuff but to even consider party protection as a reason to filibuster is messed up. It is this partisan my team vs yours that is screwing this country up.

Indeed, it's a tool that can be used to protect the American people. If the president wants to play politics with the appointment (putting someone in place so he can blame the gop later), then there's nothing wrong with the gop playing the same game and saying "no". It's all politics.

They should be like timeouts in sports, you get X per year, once you use 'em too bad for you.

That makes no sense. The number of times a filibuster is needed will depend on the number of times lousy legislation or nominations need to be blocked. Limiting the number of "time outs" can only work if you somehow limit the number of stupid bills and nominations.

I do agree that the filibuster has become way overused, but that's nothing new, it was way overused under GWB. Queue the idiots who will say "but even more now, at record levels", to which the obvious answer is that more one sided lousy bills and nominations create the need for more filibusters.

 

[PokerGuy]

Wrong.

It only "doesn't mean anything" IF you start off with the assumption that Republican filibusters are somehow more justified than Democratic ones.

Apparently logic escapes you. It doesn't mean anything *unless* you assume (as you do) that there is no reason for them. You have no more basis for your assumption than I have for mine. You've made the decision based on your political perspective that the increase in filibusters is due to obstructionism. I've made the decision based on my perspective that it's due to increased need because of lousy nominees and legislation. Two sides of the same coin, yet somehow your ideological blinders prevent you from seeing it.

I'm the one who recognizes that the answer to the question of what the increased number means depends on your political perspective. You have your blinders on and can't see it. Yet you think I'm the hack. Funny stuff man

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If the president wants to play politics with the appointment ...

This, of course, being pure supposition on your part with absolutely no evidence to support it.

It could be just as likely that Obama wants Hagel for entirely valid reasons and the GOP invented this "he just wants to blame the GOP for stuff" meme to justify their routine obstructionism.

I do agree that the filibuster has become way overused, but that's nothing new, it was way overused under GWB.

Yes, it is something new, as has already been pointed out to you repeatedly.

Queue the idiots who will say "but even more now, at record levels", to which the obvious answer is that more one sided lousy bills and nominations create the need for more filibusters.

Same response as before: the only way this argument works is if you can provide objective evidence that there was a need for more filibusters.

You can't. It's just your political hackery, saying that if Republicans blocked bills it must have been because it was necessary.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You've made the decision based on your political perspective that the increase in filibusters is due to obstructionism. I've made the decision based on my perspective that it's due to increased need because of lousy nominees and legislation. Two sides of the same coin, yet somehow your ideological blinders prevent you from seeing it.

They are not two sides of the same coin.

What you don't seem to be capable of grasping is that "lousy" is purely subjective.

My position is based on the fact that both sides routinely disagree with suggestions put forth by the other as "lousy". The Democrats could have filibustered everything to death and justified it on the basis of "lousy". And while they used it too much, they didn't use it nearly as much as the Republicans have, who took it to a whole new level.

Saying that filibusters are an attempt at obstruction is a reasonable default position, because that's exactly what a filibuster does. It obstructs. The onus is on you to show that the higher levels of obstruction by one party were justifiable. You can't.

Once again, since you have two sides opposing each other on most issues, the only way you can justify one side being more obstructionist than the other is by defining it as justifiable due to that side agreeing with your personal politics.

That makes you a hack.

 

[jruchko]

Now they are just making shit up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v5zjfYL0xU

 

[randomrogue]

Oh, the ironing. You assert that the higher number of filibusters is automatically a bad thing based on the assumption that they are not legitimately using them to block bad nominations/legislation, then turn around and complain that someone else assumes that they might be needed and perfectly legitimate. :biggrin:

Bottom line, more or less filibusters doesn't mean anything by itself.

Your critical thinking skills leave a lot to be desired.

Have you ever worked on a team? Committee? A board of directors? Been in a relationship?

I have no idea how old you and what your experiences are are but it should be 100% clear to you that what Republicans are doing in congress is obstructionism, not constructive, and that they are in the wrong.

 

[Ausm]

Your critical thinking skills leave a lot to be desired.

Have you ever worked on a team? Committee? A board of directors? Been in a relationship?

I have no idea how old you and what your experiences are are but it should be 100% clear to you that what Republicans are doing in congress is obstructionism, not constructive, and that they are in the wrong.

You have to realize that Pokerguy and many other Rightists in this Forum are the 9% of Americans who actually approve of the Congressional Republicans performance.

 

[randomrogue]

A poll earlier this week by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling found that Congress was less liked than genocidal warlord Genghis Khan, cockroaches and rock band Nickelback.

Damn!

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I'm starting to think some of our more esteemed conservative members are truly living some alternate reality...

Starting to think?

Pokerguy and others are the poster children for cognitive dissonance and living in an alternate reality. All fueled by reading Faux News and listening to Limbaugh and Hannity most likely.

 

[randomrogue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Reaffirm already held beliefs: Congeniality bias (also referred to as Confirmation Bias) refers to how people read or access information that affirms their already established opinions, rather than referencing material that contradicts them.[28] For example, a person who is politically conservative will only read newspapers and watch news commentary that is from conservative news sources. This bias appears to be particularly apparent when faced with deeply held beliefs, i.e., when a person has 'high commitment' to his or her attitudes.

 

[Agent11]

With this sort of thing what the democrats need to do is think ahead. Try to proceed and get the names of everyone who doesn't vote to overcome the filibuster.Next time they seek re election run ads that promise the democratic candidate will not play political games with the nomination of qualified candidates. Do the same for every other inappropriate use of the filibuster.

They may have to educate people a little as to WHY the filibuster is in bad taste when used in various circumstances but it would be an effective argument to portray an incumbent as part of the problem with congress.

To be effective though the Dem's would have to keep their noses clean and plan ahead.

 

[cubby1223]

Not even this guy would pass their purity test!

There is no purity test. Get over yourself.

 

[thraashman]

Your critical thinking skills leave a lot to be desired.

Have you ever worked on a team? Committee? A board of directors? Been in a relationship?

I have no idea how old you and what your experiences are are but it should be 100% clear to you that what Republicans are doing in congress is obstructionism, not constructive, and that they are in the wrong.

It would be clear but it's hard to see with your head up your ass.

I kinda liked the idea of limits to use of the filibuster. But I have a better idea. If the use of the filibuster exceeds a certain number per year AND the approval rating of Congress is below a certain number, then an American citizen gets chosen to pick a member of the Congressional party that overused the filibuster and is allowed to beat them with a baseball bat for 10 seconds and for each use of the filibuster over the threshold another member of that party gets selected. If the use of the filibuster is high enough above the threshold that every member of that Congressional minority party is selected, then the entire party gets to experience the glory of being stung by a bullet ant (look it up).

So like with the current Congressional rating and the excessive use of filibuster, multiple Congressional Republicans would get beaten with baseball bats. If they heavily used the filibuster but the Congressional rating remained high, then the American people obviously would be supporting it and thus Congress was given reprieve.

 

[lothar]

Because Hagel is not a neocon.

Is Leon Panetta a neocon?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The low ratings for Congress are funny, but easy to understand. Republicans hate Congress because of the Democrats, and Democrats hate Congress because of the Republicans. And independents hate Congress because of both. You'll never see an approval that low on the president, because some percentage of his party will approve of him even if he sacrifices a puppy on an altar and eats its heart on live TV.

And everyone only thinks their guys are great, it's the other guys that are the problem. Despite those low ratings, incumbents win by huge percentages every two years.

 

[thraashman]

The low ratings for Congress are funny, but easy to understand. Republicans hate Congress because of the Democrats, and Democrats hate Congress because of the Republicans. And independents hate Congress because of both. You'll never see an approval that low on the president, because some percentage of his party will approve of him even if he sacrifices a puppy on an altar and eats its heart on live TV.

And everyone only thinks their guys are great, it's the other guys that are the problem. Despite those low ratings, incumbents win by huge percentages every two years.

Everyone hates Congress because it's not doing anything. It's the least productive Congress in history. And the largest single factor in this Congress's failure to act on anything is the ridiculous overuse of the filibuster.

 

[Thump553]

The low ratings for Congress are funny, but easy to understand. Republicans hate Congress because of the Democrats, and Democrats hate Congress because of the Republicans. And independents hate Congress because of both. You'll never see an approval that low on the president, because some percentage of his party will approve of him even if he sacrifices a puppy on an altar and eats its heart on live TV.

And everyone only thinks their guys are great, it's the other guys that are the problem. Despite those low ratings, incumbents win by huge percentages every two years.

People hate Congress (until recently, primarily because of the House) because they do next to nothing other than creating manufactured crisises. Regardless of your political leanings, outside of a few outspoken troll types on this board, there are extremely few Americans that think a legislative branch that does next to nothing, that creates major problems for the country throwing its economy into disarry and downgrading our credit rating. etc. is by any stretch of the imagination a good thing.

Out of curiousity, I wonder if anyone has complied any statistics showing what percentage of real bills (ie, excluding naming post office type bills) attempted to be brought for a vote before the Senate have been filibustered by the GOP in the last four years? I bet the percentage is way over 50%, and probably approaching 90% or more.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

People hate Congress (until recently, primarily because of the House) because they do next to nothing other than creating manufactured crisises. Regardless of your political leanings, outside of a few outspoken troll types on this board, there are extremely few Americans that think a legislative branch that does next to nothing, that creates major problems for the country throwing its economy into disarry and downgrading our credit rating. etc. is by any stretch of the imagination a good thing.

Out of curiousity, I wonder if anyone has complied any statistics showing what percentage of real bills (ie, excluding naming post office type bills) attempted to be brought for a vote before the Senate have been filibustered by the GOP in the last four years? I bet the percentage is way over 50%, and probably approaching 90% or more.

http://www.brennancenter.org/press-...uster-abuse-paralyzes-senate-proposed-reforms

 

[cubby1223]

This is abuse. If democrats had done this to any republican president as many times as it has been during the current president's administration, republicans would be just as, if not more, angry as democrats are right now

How often have the Democrats had the opportunity?

You're looking for times when there was a Republican President with a Republican controlled Senate. 4 years of the Bush administration, 6 of Reagan's, before that you have to go back to the first 2 years of Eisenhower's administration.

Democrats don't use the filibuster, because in modern times the Democrats have largely been in control of the Senate.

 

[cubby1223]

It really is amazing, for all the chest-thumping the resident liberals do here, not one of you have given a reason in support of Hagel other than Obama nominated him.

Republicans drill him on the subject of Israel, because, that is a very powerful indicator in how one views the military's role in the region, something that is very important for law-makers to know. If a conflict breaks out, who are we going to support? Who do we support in Syria? Who do we support in Libya, in Egypt, in Mali?

 

[ivwshane]

It really is amazing, for all the chest-thumping the resident liberals do here, not one of you have given a reason in support of Hagel other than Obama nominated him.

Republicans drill him on the subject of Israel, because, that is a very powerful indicator in how one views the military's role in the region, something that is very important for law-makers to know. If a conflict breaks out, who are we going to support? Who do we support in Syria? Who do we support in Libya, in Egypt, in Mali?

You know that he doesn't set the policy right? The president does.

 

[kage69]

It really is amazing, for all the chest-thumping the resident liberals do here, not one of you have given a reason in support of Hagel other than Obama nominated him.

So these "chest thumpers" are following the example of set by Bush supporters in the last admin, got it.

Yep, definitively some amazing perspectives at work here.