Senate leaders agree on filibuster changes

[drebo]

• dropping the confirmation process for about 400 federal agency nominees.
• reduce by one-third the number of federal government positions that require Senate confirmation.

I don't like these two items.

Every non-elected federal official in a regulatory, enforcement, or interpretive role should have to be confirmed by elected officials. If they are making, interpreting, or enforcing policy not created by elected officials, they should be required to be confirmed by elected officials. Otherwise, there is no accountability.

Perhaps the real solution is to simply have less of them.

 

[thraashman]

The Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for over a year, what happened?

This is the one that always cracks me up. For some reason Republicans seem to think those of us who support Democrats actually want all Democrats to think the exact same way with no dissension. Why the hell would we want that? We want politicians that think for themselves. Not dittoheads who do exactly as Rush O'Reilly Beck tells them to. The near complete inability to think for oneself is a title held onto firmly by Republicans that those of us on the Left have no desire to grab hold of.

 

[Ldir]

Craig blames the Blue Dogs - they are not true Democrats.

Funny how Obama, Pelosi and Reid felt that they could run roughshod over the Republicans in the beginning.

By the Blue Dogs defecting; it indicates that the Dem policies were not as sound as proposed.

No, it shows Craig was right.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Craig blames the Blue Dogs - they are not true Democrats.

Funny how Obama, Pelosi and Reid felt that they could run roughshod over the Republicans in the beginning.

By the Blue Dogs defecting; it indicates that the Dem policies were not as sound as proposed.

No, it shows Craig was right.

So a true democrat must be one that toes the party line and agrees with Craigs views.

Funny, toeing the party line is what he complains about the Republican doing.

It must be OK for a Republican to think for themselves but not a Democrat

 

[Craig234]

Frankly, I wish they made the filibuster easier and harder to break.

The less congress can do, I'd bet the better we are as a whole.

Ignorant ideology. The fact is, much if not most of our 'great' legislation has been passed by Democratic Super-majorities.

I understand the centrist ideology *screams*at the fact - no side can be right, they are both wrong, only something 'between them' is ok - but that's ideology for you.

You can check the facts and history, or you can keep spewing your ignorant assumptions about what works. Not a lot of doubt it'll be the latter, unfortunately.

There's a line you cross, between a healthy skepticism of government and not wanting it to become a runaway mess, and simply hating elected government, not wanting the people to have any real power to do anything, opposing government not because it's wrong but simply out of reflex and ideology.

That creates a vacuum of power, that will be filled by those not elected.

But they - the corporatocracy - will have plenty of budget for marketing and propaganda, so people like you can be told how great they are.

 

[Ldir]

So a true democrat must be one that toes the party line and agrees with Craigs views.

Funny, toeing the party line is what he complains about the Republican doing.

It must be OK for a Republican to think for themselves but not a Democrat

Republicans don't think for themselves. They do whatever the party says. The party demands obedience and punishes anyone who strays.

 

[CallMeJoe]

The Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for over a year, what happened?

I love the fuzzy math.

Democratic Senator #58, Al Franken, was seated July, 2009.
Edward Kennedy died in August of the same year.
That makes one month of a filibuster-proof majority, if you count two Independents as Democrats.

FWIW, one of those Independents actively campaigned for the Republican candidate in the preceding presidential contest.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I love the fuzzy math.

Democratic Senator #58, Al Franken, was seated July, 2009.
Edward Kennedy died in August of the same year.
That makes one month of a filibuster-proof majority, if you count two Independents as Democrats.

FWIW, one of those Independents actively campaigned for the Republican candidate in the preceding presidential contest.

Someone should have told Obama & Reid how to count their chickens.
They threw down the glove and the Republicans accepted the challenge.

Who won the battle?

 

[ProfJohn]

I love the fuzzy math.

Democratic Senator #58, Al Franken, was seated July, 2009.
Edward Kennedy died in August of the same year.
That makes one month of a filibuster-proof majority, if you count two Independents as Democrats.

FWIW, one of those Independents actively campaigned for the Republican candidate in the preceding presidential contest.

I didn't realize it took Al that long to be seated...

Also, there was an intern Senator appointed to fill Kennedy's seat and he voted for the healthcare bill.

So the Democrats had a 60 vote majority for a couple months in the summer and 4 months in the fall/winter/spring of 2010. It's irrelevant anyways because the Democrats biggest problem was other Democrats, not Republicans.

A lot of the crap that Craig would have liked passed would never had made it through the Senate 60 seats or not. Too many middle of the road types would have voted with the Republicans in filibusters or not voted at all keeping the Democrats from hitting 60.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I didn't realize it took Al that long to be seated...

Also, there was an intern Senator appointed to fill Kennedy's seat and he voted for the healthcare bill.

So the Democrats had a 60 vote majority for a couple months in the summer and 4 months in the fall/winter/spring of 2010. It's irrelevant anyways because the Democrats biggest problem was other Democrats, not Republicans.

A lot of the crap that Craig would have liked passed would never had made it through the Senate 60 seats or not. Too many middle of the road types would have voted with the Republicans in filibusters or not voted at all keeping the Democrats from hitting 60.

Darn Blue Dogs - stifling the progressive agenda :thumbsup:

 

[nageov3t]

I didn't realize it took Al that long to be seated...

Also, there was an intern Senator appointed to fill Kennedy's seat and he voted for the healthcare bill.

So the Democrats had a 60 vote majority for a couple months in the summer and 4 months in the fall/winter/spring of 2010. It's irrelevant anyways because the Democrats biggest problem was other Democrats, not Republicans.

A lot of the crap that Craig would have liked passed would never had made it through the Senate 60 seats or not. Too many middle of the road types would have voted with the Republicans in filibusters or not voted at all keeping the Democrats from hitting 60.

unlike progressives, apparently, I think most people voting in the Senate remembered being in the minority party at some point and are aware that they'll probably be back there again sooner or later.

I don't remember this strong of a push for doing away with filibusters or forcing floor speeches nearly as hard from DailyKos back during the GWB years when Republicans held the house and senate.

 

[Ldir]

Darn Blue Dogs - stifling the progressive agenda :thumbsup:

If you are done trolling, the point is Progressive Democrats never had a filibuster-proof majority. Republicans who say otherwise are ignorant or lying.

 

[ProfJohn]

If you are done trolling, the point is Progressive Democrats never had a filibuster-proof majority. Republicans who say otherwise are ignorant or lying.

Actually... the progressive Democrats never even had a true majority. Which explains why the American people did a collective WTF! and kicked a ton of Democrats out of office last fall.

The American people don't want the progressive Democrat agenda and every time the Democrats forget that pesky fact and try pushing that agenda the Democrats get an ass kicking at election time.

Happened in 1980, 1994 and again last year.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Darn Blue Dogs - stifling the progressive agenda :thumbsup:

If you are done trolling, the point is Progressive Democrats never had a filibuster-proof majority. Republicans who say otherwise are ignorant or lying.

Trolling is fun at the expense of those that claimed on day 0 that they would run roughshod over the Republicans and push their agenda through. force them to look at the mirror. And the ability to do it in color vs black/white

The arogant Democrats felt they did not need any type of feedback/cooperation from the Republicans.

And the Dem faithful lapped it up.
Now they are complaining that they were stymied. They did it to themselves

And it was for one of two reasons.

Arrogance that that could do it on their own.
Inability to produce a good package to get the needed support.

And #2 was probably caused by the bitter ill will that they created by #1.

 

[conehead433]

Having to have 60 votes to pass almost everything is a bunch of BS as well. Majority rules.

 

[werepossum]

the important bits:

• dropping the confirmation process for about 400 federal agency nominees.
• repeal the decades-old stalling tactics of secret holds -- in which an anonymous senator could slow action on a bill
• reduce by one-third the number of federal government positions that require Senate confirmation.
• McConnell has agreed to rarely use a tactic that forces Reid to hold a vote to break a filibuster on a motion to consider a bill... In turn, Reid has agreed that he will rarely maneuver to forbid Republicans from offering amendments

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/27/AR2011012703379.html

I hope the deal holds, I actually don't really see anything in there that I disagree with.

Sounds great, from your cliffs.

How about making the filibuster actually be a filibuster, instead of simply threatening? None of this crap fixes the bullshit where every damn bill requires 60 votes.

Exactly right. The filibuster is far too powerful as it is. We need to go back to the days where a Senator actually had to keep speaking to keep the floor open. Then we'll see what is really important to Senators, when there is unpleasantness and inconvenience to them personally.

 

[werepossum]

If you are done trolling, the point is Progressive Democrats never had a filibuster-proof majority. Republicans who say otherwise are ignorant or lying.

You say that as though progressive Democrats have some sort of right to a filibuster-proof majority. They do not. It's extremely rare for even a whole party to have a filibuster-proof majority, let alone a faction of a party. Republicans have never had a filibuster-proof majority within my lifetime, maybe never.

Democrats had only to be polite enough to woo away one or two liberal Republicans to pass anything. Instead they gave us arrogance heretofore unseen even in politics. That cost them the House. Perhaps these progressive Democrats need to learn how to work together with others BEFORE they remake the country into a European Socialist clone.

 

[nageov3t]

I think stopping the anonymous filibusters is a pretty big change.

could you really imagine something like the 9/11 responders bill getting filibustered if Senator X had to sign his name right next to that and directly face questions about it from reporters and constituents and be forced to run on that public statement in the next election cycle?

 

[IBMer]

The arogant Democrats felt they did not need any type of feedback/cooperation from the Republicans.

This is exactly what happens when any party controls the House and the Senate. This is not an "arrogant Democrats" specialty. Even more so when a party controls the House.

 

[Jhhnn]

unlike progressives, apparently, I think most people voting in the Senate remembered being in the minority party at some point and are aware that they'll probably be back there again sooner or later.

I don't remember this strong of a push for doing away with filibusters or forcing floor speeches nearly as hard from DailyKos back during the GWB years when Republicans held the house and senate.

You don't remember the Nuclear Option? How convenient.

 

[nageov3t]

You don't remember the Nuclear Option? How convenient.

I do.

did you remember what I actually wrote before quoting it?

 

[Jhhnn]

I do.

did you remember what I actually wrote before quoting it?

My mistake. Dems were not nearly as obstructionist during the Bush years as Repubs have been over the last few, however. They created paralysis, blamed Dems for inaction, exploited the discontent for electoral victories.

In a way, it's too bad that Repubs didn't go for the nuclear option in 2005- it would have invited Dems to do the same over the last 2 years, and we'd be better off.

 

[Craig234]

ProfJohn is wrong. The Senate had 52-58 Democratic votes for every major bill the House passed that I've seen.