Some truth on 'obstruction' and filibustering

[Craig234]

There have been a lot of threads pointing out examples of Republican behavior where they scream about democrats doing something, but are the ones actually doing it more.

We don't need to review spending; other examples include things like approving judicial nominees, or the case where Republicans threatened to block EVERY Clinton nominee if he did not agree to their blackmail demand to do something he had no obligation to do, notify them in writing in advance of his planned recess appointments (a rule they scrapped the moment they could under Bush, who went on to abuse the recess appointments, doing far more than Clinton to appoint especially terrible appointees).

I guess there are posted in hopes that the ideologues can be affected by the facts.

Here's another.

The Republicans used to scream murder at the democrats about being 'obstructionists', especially by 'overusing the filibuster'.

Here's the fact: The Republicans have set a record for filibusters in the current congress - before it's half done! That's a trend to more than double the previous record.

But we don't hear about that in the media, we don't see the airwaves dominated by the phrase 'Republican obstruction'. When I google it, I didn't find any mainstream media references to the issue at all. What we DO hear - amazingly, including from Bush - is that the DEMOCRATS in Congress aren't getting as much done as they should. No one has accused Bush of lacking Chutzpah when it comes to lying.

Block the dems, then blame them for not passing bills.

 

[quest55720]

It works both ways the dems are blocking any vote on lifting the ban on off shore drilling. Both parties should be ashamed of what they are doing right now. Instead of working together to help a country in need they are busy playing politics.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: quest55720
It works both ways the dems are blocking any vote on lifting the ban on off shore drilling. Both parties should be ashamed of what they are doing right now. Instead of working together to help a country in need they are busy playing politics.

I don't even know why offshoring drilling is even brought up. Any offshoring drilling starting now will not produce fruit until at least half a decade from now. Five more years of growing gas prices? How is off shore drilling supposed to do anything now? The crap about offshore drilling seems to be just a kickback to the oil companies who simply want access to currently pristine areas of American shorelines.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Taejin

Originally posted by: quest55720
It works both ways the dems are blocking any vote on lifting the ban on off shore drilling. Both parties should be ashamed of what they are doing right now. Instead of working together to help a country in need they are busy playing politics.

I don't even know why offshoring drilling is even brought up. Any offshoring drilling starting now will not produce fruit until at least half a decade from now. Five more years of growing gas prices? How is off shore drilling supposed to do anything now? The crap about offshore drilling seems to be just a kickback to the oil companies who simply want access to currently pristine areas of American shorelines.

I don't know why alternative energies are even brought up. They won't bear fruit until at least a decade from now.

Do you really think we won't be using oil in 5 years? Do you think global demand is going to significantly drop? Do you know how the worst oil spills (that mess up those pristine beaches) occur? Do you know that the vast majority (or ALL if the state so desires) of the oil rigs will be well offshore and out of site of the beaches?

Do you know that oil exploration/development has gotten very clean? This actually works with the "evil oil companies only out for a buck" line of thought. Its actually cheaper for the oil companies to prevent oil from entering the environment then it is to pay the fines/lawsuits/cleanup. Think of it as being profitable to prevent spills. Oil companies are all about profit right?

Back on topic: Generally I like the filibusters from both sides. For the most part, the less congress gets done the less they screw up (both parties). Unfortunately, when it comes to things that are necessary and urgent party politics continue to prevent anything from getting done. Just like right now with the energy issue. Both parties (for once) actually have some good ideas. Instead of doing BOTH AT THE SAME DAMNED TIME they prevent each other from doing anything at all.

Pour a ton of money into alternative fuels. Push conservation and efficiency. Expand and improve energy infrastructure. AND drill our own damn oil so we can send a little less money to other countries. So far I am liking the Pickens plan of replacing nat. gas electrical generation with wind power and using that nat. gas for transportation fuel and he is putting his money where his mouth is.

 

[CycloWizard]

There have been a lot of threads created by the OP. None of them has any insight or earth shattering news. All of them contain diatribe condemning Republicans while touting the Democrats. This is the real problem with politics in this country. "My party can do no wrong, while the other can do nothing right." And/or "My party may have done something wrong, but yours did something as bad or worse," which is, of course, the famous "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.

 

[sjwaste]

Congress is simply too large. Any time you get 500+ together, groupthink is going to take over, and they're going to fight within their alliances/parties.

I dunno, I think Congress needs some shrinking. Even the Senate is too big. 1 rep from each state in the Senate, plus shrinking the House down to about 100 would probably be enough.

And by the way, this country is going nowhere until the majority realizes both parties stink and stops voting for them as the lesser of two evils. You might be a bleeding heart liberal or a nut house conservative or anywhere in the middle, but neither party supports the majority of your ideas. All they've done is grandstanded on a few minor, but easy to use as definitive issues, and gotten you to elect them so they can continue the status quo.

The repubs and dems in office right now have a lot more in common than not, and it's that which keeps us moving full speed ahead. Every candidate, D or R, promises chamge, but never delivers. Think it might just be empty rhetoric to get elected? And judging by the behavior in this forum, most are falling for it. If you're engaging in the Dems are better than Repubs debate, or vice versa, you've already taken the bait.

 

[Double Trouble]

Blah blah blah, pot meet kettle. Both sides do things, then whine when the other does the same thing. Welcome to politics.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

IMO, the "obstructionist" complaint from the Rs was about Judges. That was what I and many others were upset about a couple years ago. The rest is fine as it is a function of the way our gov't works. Judges however are to get an up or down vote- period.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
IMO, the "obstructionist" complaint from the Rs was about Judges. That was what I and many others were upset about a couple years ago. The rest is fine as it is a function of the way our gov't works. Judges however are to get an up or down vote- period.

Why?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
I don't know why alternative energies are even brought up. They won't bear fruit until at least a decade from now.

Yes but they will go toward solving the problem rather than putting a band aid (more drilling) on it.

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Do you really think we won't be using oil in 5 years? Do you think global demand is going to significantly drop? Do you know how the worst oil spills (that mess up those pristine beaches) occur? Do you know that the vast majority (or ALL if the state so desires) of the oil rigs will be well offshore and out of site of the beaches?

Of course we'll still be using oil in 5 years but everything I read/hear on our oil sources says they would literally be a drop in the bucket. I didn't look but I'm guessing the big spills are from tankers. That doesn't dismiss the possibility of a spill from a platform during a hurricane. Environmental impact aside, the 'relief' would still be minimal and years away.

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Do you know that oil exploration/development has gotten very clean? This actually works with the "evil oil companies only out for a buck" line of thought. Its actually cheaper for the oil companies to prevent oil from entering the environment then it is to pay the fines/lawsuits/cleanup. Think of it as being profitable to prevent spills. Oil companies are all about profit right?

Do you mean very clean or less dirty? And despite best efforts accidents still happen: LINK

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Back on topic: Generally I like the filibusters from both sides. For the most part, the less congress gets done the less they screw up (both parties). Unfortunately, when it comes to things that are necessary and urgent party politics continue to prevent anything from getting done. Just like right now with the energy issue. Both parties (for once) actually have some good ideas. Instead of doing BOTH AT THE SAME DAMNED TIME they prevent each other from doing anything at all.

Pour a ton of money into alternative fuels. Push conservation and efficiency. Expand and improve energy infrastructure. AND drill our own damn oil so we can send a little less money to other countries. So far I am liking the Pickens plan of replacing nat. gas electrical generation with wind power and using that nat. gas for transportation fuel and he is putting his money where his mouth is.

I haven't heard a lot on the good ideas. We have ethanol and the prospect of more drilling but those aren't short or long term solutions.

 

[Lemon law]

There is nothing in the constitution about a filibuster in the Senate. But its been part of Senate rules since the early 19'th century and also was used in the house until the practice was stopped. And the 60 vote stop with cloture is a modern reform.

But funny thing, when your party is in a minority, the filibuster is seen as a good thing, when your party has a majority and can't muster 60 votes, it seems obstructionist. But IMHO, legislation that can't muster at least 40% is sometimes better stopped by a veto from the minority. By in large, in the history of our country, its served us well. The influence of GWB is that rare exception, and while it presently gridlocks us, the case will be even more compelling as the can is kicked down the road.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
IMO, the "obstructionist" complaint from the Rs was about Judges. That was what I and many others were upset about a couple years ago. The rest is fine as it is a function of the way our gov't works. Judges however are to get an up or down vote- period.

Why?

IMO, the "obstructionist" complaint from the Rs was about Judges. That was what I and many others were upset about a couple years ago. The rest is fine as it is a function of the way our gov't works. Judges however are to get an up or down vote- period.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
There is nothing in the constitution about a filibuster in the Senate. But its been part of Senate rules since the early 19'th century and also was used in the house until the practice was stopped. And the 60 vote stop with cloture is a modern reform.

But funny thing, when your party is in a minority, the filibuster is seen as a good thing, when your party has a majority and can't muster 60 votes, it seems obstructionist. But IMHO, legislation that can't muster at least 40% is sometimes better stopped by a veto from the minority. By in large, in the history of our country, its served us well. The influence of GWB is that rare exception, and while it presently gridlocks us, the case will be even more compelling as the can is kicked down the road.

Well the use of the filibuster has skyrocketed in the last 30 years or so. I think it has more to do with the ideological polarization of the Senate then anything else, and that long predates 'ol Bush.

I'm not sure how much longer the Senate will be able to operate under these rules. The interesting part about the Senate is that every member has a huge amount of power to gum up the works... I mean an absolutely huge amount. The whole place basically operates on the principle that while anyone can fuck the place all up, they choose not to because they presumably have some legislation of their own that they want passed. The whole 'choose not to' thing seems to be going out the window lately though.

I agree that the filibuster is an important tool for protection of the minority, especially when things are this polarized. There needs to be some sort of balance between the majority being able to enact their legislation (that the majority of America elected them to do) and this protection though.

Not that I necessarily think it's a good idea, but since the Democrats will likely win the White House and larger majorities in the Congress in November, if the Republicans keep abusing this, they might lose it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
IMO, the "obstructionist" complaint from the Rs was about Judges. That was what I and many others were upset about a couple years ago. The rest is fine as it is a function of the way our gov't works. Judges however are to get an up or down vote- period.

Why?

IMO, the "obstructionist" complaint from the Rs was about Judges. That was what I and many others were upset about a couple years ago. The rest is fine as it is a function of the way our gov't works. Judges however are to get an up or down vote- period.

Why are judges/appointments different then the other business of the Senate?

PS: If you're going to be a jackass again just tell me now so I can shift to insulting you instead of trying to talk about the issue.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Robor


I haven't heard a lot on the good ideas. We have ethanol and the prospect of more drilling but those aren't short or long term solutions.

Getting ready to walk out the door with my daughter so I will respond to the rest in a bit. In the mean time, you can check out Pickens plan. He made billions in the oil field and knows the industry inside and out AND he is willing to put his billions on the line.

http://push.pickensplan.com/

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
There have been a lot of threads created by the OP. None of them has any insight or earth shattering news. All of them contain diatribe condemning Republicans while touting the Democrats. This is the real problem with politics in this country. "My party can do no wrong, while the other can do nothing right." And/or "My party may have done something wrong, but yours did something as bad or worse," which is, of course, the famous "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.

I didn't even finish reading your broadside of lies.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
IMO, the "obstructionist" complaint from the Rs was about Judges. That was what I and many others were upset about a couple years ago. The rest is fine as it is a function of the way our gov't works. Judges however are to get an up or down vote- period.

As I said, that's just another issue where the R's were hypocrits, attacking the D's for something they were the ones behaving far worse on.

The R's blocked more nominees than the D's, and played games by trying to pretend that the method used for the blocking mattered.

The R's were the ones who not only blocked the D's judges but, as I have said, threatened to block *all* of Clinton's appointees as a matter of blackmail.

CAD, when are you going to show the integrity to get informed and post the accurate info on the R behavior?

 

[Lemon law]

Well, the Cad justification that all Judges should get an up or down vote seems to boil down to a because Cad said so that why.

But we can somewhat understand that both the executive and legislative branch should be partisan because they are by definition partisan.

But a judges function is to rule on matters of existing law and the constitution, and hence they should be politically neutral in MHO. And therefore its also wrong for any political party to try to pack the courts with judges who will act as political shills and not judges. And hence, by that reasoning, the filibusters is especially useful in the case of judges and thus especially should not be allowed any mere up and down vote when they have past records of being a political shill for either party.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well, the Cad justification that all Judges should get an up or down vote seems to boil down to a because Cad said so that why.

But we can somewhat understand that both the executive and legislative branch should be partisan because they are by definition partisan.

But a judges function is to rule on matters of existing law and the constitution, and hence they should be politically neutral in MHO. And therefore its also wrong for any political party to try to pack the courts with judges who will act as political shills and not judges. And hence, by that reasoning, the filibusters is especially useful in the case of judges and thus especially should not be allowed any mere up and down vote when they have past records of being a political shills.

Well practically the filibuster just serves so the party filibustering can try and get their political shills in there instead. But yes, the distinction between judges/appointments and the other business of the Senate is just an arbitrary distinction that someone decided to make up to serve a partisan purpose.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
IMO, the "obstructionist" complaint from the Rs was about Judges. That was what I and many others were upset about a couple years ago. The rest is fine as it is a function of the way our gov't works. Judges however are to get an up or down vote- period.

As I said, that's just another issue where the R's were hypocrits, attacking the D's for something they were the ones behaving far worse on.

The R's blocked more nominees than the D's, and played games by trying to pretend that the method used for the blocking mattered.

The R's were the ones who not only blocked the D's judges but, as I have said, threatened to block *all* of Clinton's appointees as a matter of blackmail.

CAD, when are you going to show the integrity to get informed and post the accurate info on the R behavior?

Uhhh.... the only integrity that is lacking is coming from the likes of you who try to paint my objection to the lib's filibustering of judges as the same thing as filibustering/obstructing other things.
Judges deserve a up/down vote no matter which side puts them up as a nominee.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Uhhh.... the only integrity that is lacking is coming from the likes of you who try to paint my objection to the lib's filibustering of judges as the same thing as filibustering/obstructing other things.
Judges deserve a up/down vote no matter which side puts them up as a nominee.

Still waiting on an explanation as to why one type of senate business 'deserves' a straight majority vote while other ones don't.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Uhhh.... the only integrity that is lacking is coming from the likes of you who try to paint my objection to the lib's filibustering of judges as the same thing as filibustering/obstructing other things.
Judges deserve a up/down vote no matter which side puts them up as a nominee.

Do you acknowledge the R's were hypocrits in being more obstructionist than the D's on approving Clinton's appointees, changing the rules in their favor, and then when Bush took office falsely attacking them as being more obstructionist, as they changed the rules back the other way now that their party was in the White House?

For example, the rule for decades was that a judicial nominee could be blocked if a state's two Senators objected to the nominee, called 'blue-slipping'.

When our modern radical Republicans weren't busy with an unjustified impeachment of President Clinton, they were changing the rules so that only one Republican Senator could block any judicial nominee, instead of both Senators. But then when Bush took office, the rule not only went back to two being required, now that it was a Republican president, but they didn't even allow both Senators to block some nominees.

Do you acknowledge that and display integrity by doing so, or do you refuse to and put forth a false history for parrtisan reasons?

You already fail the first integrity test by misrepresenting my position, I didn't say a word about your position on judges versus other issues, while you made a false attack on me.

Even if I had taken a position, and that position had agreed with others that the two aren't different, how is that a problem with "integrity" to hold that opinion?

You shouldn't throw around the word so falsely.

For those who are interested, the top Democrat on the Judiciary committee gave a good speech on the topic of the Republican abuses here.

 

[mxyzptlk]

That reminds me of the character "Win-Without-a-Knife" in the classic Kung-Fu flick,Master of the Flying Guillotine.

here's a spoiler... He uses a knife.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Darwin333
I don't know why alternative energies are even brought up. They won't bear fruit until at least a decade from now.

Yes but they will go toward solving the problem rather than putting a band aid (more drilling) on it.

Of course it won't solve the problem which is why I said we need to be developing alternatives AT THE SAME TIME. There is no single answer to this problem.

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Do you really think we won't be using oil in 5 years? Do you think global demand is going to significantly drop? Do you know how the worst oil spills (that mess up those pristine beaches) occur? Do you know that the vast majority (or ALL if the state so desires) of the oil rigs will be well offshore and out of site of the beaches?

Of course we'll still be using oil in 5 years but everything I read/hear on our oil sources says they would literally be a drop in the bucket. I didn't look but I'm guessing the big spills are from tankers. That doesn't dismiss the possibility of a spill from a platform during a hurricane. Environmental impact aside, the 'relief' would still be minimal and years away.

Even if it is a drop in the bucket those drops start adding up when alternatives start coming online. Your argument of "relief would still be years away" doesn't hold water unless you think we should halt all development of alternatives because they are years away as well. I don't understand how some of ya'll just don't get it. We are STILL going to use oil. We will get some domestically and we will import the rest (a large portion and pretty much 100% of any increased imports) via tankers. Why wouldn't you prefer that more of the oil we use is transported completely via new pipelines, more US dollars stay in the US, the Government makes more money via royalties and taxes, more GOOD US jobs, and an increase (even if very slight) in national security?

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Do you know that oil exploration/development has gotten very clean? This actually works with the "evil oil companies only out for a buck" line of thought. Its actually cheaper for the oil companies to prevent oil from entering the environment then it is to pay the fines/lawsuits/cleanup. Think of it as being profitable to prevent spills. Oil companies are all about profit right?

Do you mean very clean or less dirty? And despite best efforts accidents still happen: LINK

First of all, if you take the highest number given, over the last 13 years the thousands of oil rigs/wells and thousands of miles of pipelines have spilled less than 1/5 of what a single tanker did. Furthermore, most spills are of a few gallons and are cleaned up quickly and easily. Second, as the article states a lot of it is due to aging infrastructure and old practices. I won't deny that the oil companies didn't care much about the environment 20 years ago but its a different world today. The article also states that new regulations and rules have since been enacted to prevent a lot of the problems caused by the aging infrastructure.

I fish in Grand Isle and I have never seen even a moderate spill. A sheen every now and then but it was always being cleaned up at the time.

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Back on topic: Generally I like the filibusters from both sides. For the most part, the less congress gets done the less they screw up (both parties). Unfortunately, when it comes to things that are necessary and urgent party politics continue to prevent anything from getting done. Just like right now with the energy issue. Both parties (for once) actually have some good ideas. Instead of doing BOTH AT THE SAME DAMNED TIME they prevent each other from doing anything at all.

Pour a ton of money into alternative fuels. Push conservation and efficiency. Expand and improve energy infrastructure. AND drill our own damn oil so we can send a little less money to other countries. So far I am liking the Pickens plan of replacing nat. gas electrical generation with wind power and using that nat. gas for transportation fuel and he is putting his money where his mouth is.

I haven't heard a lot on the good ideas. We have ethanol and the prospect of more drilling but those aren't short or long term solutions.

But you have a few drops in the bucket towards solving the big problem. Add in Pickens plan, which I think we should go with for the time being unless you can come up with a better plan that has a TON of private funding already in place to back it, and now we are making REAL long term progress. All with current technology.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
Here's the fact: The Republicans have set a record for filibusters in the current congress - before it's half done! That's a trend to more than double the previous record.

Care to provide a link to back that up?

TIA

Fern