Americans are getting tired of the filibuster too
The Republican abuse of the filibuster is finally even getting to the American people.
One of the greatest obstacles to passing progressive legislation in Congress has been the use of the filibuster in the Senate. With upwards of “40 cloture votes since the start of the 111th Congress in January, this Senate is on pace to record the second-largest number of filibuster roll calls,” transforming what was intended to be a seldom-used procedural tactic into an all-out tool for obstructionism. Now, a new CBS/New York Times poll finds that more Americans support ending the filibuster and requiring legislation to pass by a simple majority:
As you may know, the Senate operates under procedures that effectively require 60 votes, out of 100, for most legislation to pass, allowing a minority of as few as 41 senators to block a majority. Do you think this procedure should remain in place, or do you think it should be changed so that legislation is passed with a simple majority?
Should remain 44
Should be changed 50
[Don't Know] 6
I would bet you that on January 1, 2009, most American had no idea what the filibuster even was. The constant abuse of this practice is not escaping the notice of our citizens. And you know the only reason why Americans are getting fed up with the filibuster is because the liberal blogosphere has been getting this information out there to the American people.
Way past "getting tired" for me.
The rule had some justification back in the old days.
Time for the senate to return to simple math for majority rule. Super-majority is for amendments to the constitution and a few other important things - not every bill that comes to the floor.
Time to remind the GOP that the filibuster isn't in the constitution.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
For getting these stupid filthy lying republicans out of our government.
For over thirty years these morons, and all around degenerate lowlife basterds have done nothing but lie cheat and steal. They have done nothing for the good of the country and it's people, only for themselves and their corporate masters.
I am so sick of these people that I just don't care about even being fair with them any more. After all look what trying to be fair with these scum has gotten us. A mountain of debt, two wars with no end in sight, Americans dying because the richest country in the world is also the greediest. We need to tax anyone over 1 million a year at 95%. They don't need that much fucking money any way.
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness!
What filibuster? All they need to do is threaten to filibuster and the Democrats cave.
I thought the last time it ever happened for real was here
me-oww!
I mean that satirically of course like Rush did.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
Technically, all the minority party has to do is to "threaten" a filibuster, and it's considered a done deal.
Of course, it has to come from the minority leader.
When the Establishment wants things done, things get done: Bernanke's confirmation with 70 votes; Pentagon spending and war supplementals; corporate welfare; and on and on.
Moreover, Republicans who vote "No" on bills are still given earmarks and pork for their district. Republicans are then called hypocrites for touting the bacon while voting "No."
The better question is: "Why are Republicans given everything they want when they are still voting 'No'"? This isn't political horse trading; this is giving the opposition what they want in return for absolutely nothing.
Why?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
There is no difference between the alleged parties.
"No real "progressive" Democrat has won a majority of votes in a Presidential election unless they were an incumbent."
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Who are you quoting?
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
No one else quotes me and you never link.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
You are quoting yourself?!
Oh, well that IS different.
I never link what?
Ricky, please finish your sentences.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
and the truth of the quote.
No REAL progressive Democrat has won a majority of votes in a Presidential election unless they were an incumbent.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
"No REAL progressive Democrat has won a majority of votes in a Presidential election unless they were an incumbent."
To paraphrase one of my all-time heroes: It all depends on what the meaning of "majority" is. In 1992, even with Ross Perot in the stew, Bill Clinton still won enough votes to take the election. Never mind the so-called "electoral college". He had to win enough popular votes in a state to win that state's electoral votes.
And if Bill Clinton -- and Hillary as well -- is not a progressive, then who the heck is??
Clinton a progressive?!!???!!
That is absolutely hilarious.
Clinton was a Republican.
The first thing he did in '93 was join with the Republicans and fellow Blue Dogs to pass the Republican NAFTA proposal, over the no votes of the progressive Democrats, the few that there were.
Clinton was and is a Republican.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
many commenters here use the phrase real progressive. Some like REAL progressive. As Alice demonstrates, many dispute the authenticity of progressive credentials.
Bill Clinton, Woodrow Wilson and John Kennedy won with a plurality of votes(and I will bet you a Missle Gap & Quemoy and Matsu it would be hard to call JFK a "progressive.")
FDR campaigned on a platform of a sound currency, a better tariff, reduced spending and a balanced budget. Carter ran as an outsider who would end busing.
That leaves Obama.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
As Rachel Maddow pointed out, Rep. Aaron Shock voted against the omnibus bill but was still able to go home and brag about the pork.
Specifically: Why was he given his pork when he voted against the bill?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
A: He is a Protestant and has no religious or dietary restrictions against flesh of swine or
B: Governement works much like God; in mysterious ways beyond the comprehension of all but the most devout followers.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
. . . you wanted the specificity :)
Corruption favors the wealthy.
There is a long-standing agreement between the majority and minority parties that for each committee there will be a certain division of earmark opportunities. In fact, the decider for a particular member of the committee is either the committee chairman for the majority or ranking member for the minority.
It comes from that "comity" mentality.
just issue executive orders and signing statements for everything like Bush did?...
(do an end run around congress?)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
statement and an executive order are and how they work, but I'll hope that someone else does it.
. . . or declaring Canadian drugs safe for re-importation:
Yes.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I remember what we all thought and said when bush did things like that and it was ugly. Do we want this president to stoop to bush's level?
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
...it looks like he is gonna stoop anyway!
With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/us/politics...
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
.
me-oww!
Not all Executive orders suck. Jimmy Carter signed one granting amnesty to war protesters who refused to register for the draft. Truman signed one integrating the armed services. OTOH, FDR had the citizens of Japanese descent and Japanese immigrants on the west coast imprisoned with one.
I don't want Obama NOT to use a power that is legally and traditionally his, as POTUS, just because Bush sucked like the vacuum of space at it. Obama was elected; Bush was not.
me-oww!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc&fe...
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
is not the same as an executive order. moran. look it up.
me-oww!
f*&ked anything. I did f*^k up by signing a lot of things.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
There were many provocative issues that led the Japanese to their attack.
The provocations were inexcusable, the retalitory attack was inexcusable.
They were all part of the conflict of empires.
But, violating the rights of Japanese Americans was worse than inexcusable. They were citizens.
Military service people, the working class variety, always bear the brunt of Imperial treachery.
That was true for the Americans, the Japanese, everywhere.
Working class people are the pawns and the victims of the powerful who wage these Imperial wars.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
...what provoked Japan into the Rape of Nanking, four years previous to Pearl Harbor, and long before any US sanctions on trade with Japan?
I recognize your argument as one that Zinn made, but he also chastised the US for not smacking down the Japanese promptly for those aforementioned atrocities. Can't have it both ways.
Not that I disagree about the internment of Japanese-Americans. That was deplorable. Never heard of Italian- or German-Americans even considered as threats unless they were actual Nazi supporters.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Or was it just bigotry?
'Cause I don't remember too many German-Americans being rounded up.
But I do remember that the 442nd Infantry, a Japanese-American Regiment, became the most highly decorated regiment in the history of the United States armed forces and included 21 Medal of Honor recipients.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
And for Michelle Malkin to prove she is a real American.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
He issued a pardon for violation of selective service laws under explicit powers of the constitution granted to the President. He id use an Executive Order to specify how the pardon would be implemented.
http://www.justice.gov/pardon/carter_proclama...
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
I was under the impression he signed that after he took the oath of office and that it was 'olly olly oxen free' I'll do more research, so next time I won't look like an ignint bubba when I post. I hate it when that happens...
Thanks, ricky..
me-oww!
regardless of the power utilized to do it.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Some things are not.
The White House put pressure on the FDA to declare Canadian drugs unsafe. Just like the Bush FDA did . . . .
Does anyone believe that Canadian drugs are actually unsafe? Any Canadians?
Or did PhRMA's Billy Tauzin and Barack Obama have a beer?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Funny, one of the first things I ever remember learning about the government and politics was the word "filibuster" and what it meant. I can't remember why or what the occasion was, but the word and its meaning stuck in my head even as a kid.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Hybrid fan palms (Washingtonia filifera X W. robusta) are colloquially referred to as "filibustas", probably the most useful (close) use of filibuster...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Sounds like republican rappers.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
A filibuster is someone who engages in an unauthorized military expedition into a foreign country to foment or support a revolution.
Fits the neocons like a glove. . .
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Ain't nothing gonna happen in gov'ment lessen the real bosses (fascists) says so. Now git back to work'n and don't you never mind what's goin' on up on da' hill in the big'n's house.
And it is begining to look like the only way we might have to combat them is to pick up arms and go after them!
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness!
Isn't that some kind of a nut?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Mark Thoma here
After McClatchy here
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
When mothers say "You never write, you never call" they do not use "me" at the end, but everyone gets the meaning. You never link.
It is a complete sentence.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
I said finish your sentence.
If it is a complete sentence, in meaning, it is demonstrably false, since you are replying to my comment offering links.
Your supposed quote of mothers is pointless.
And here I thought you had stopped drinking,.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Where did you demonstrate you thought I still was?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
I don't understand why the Democratic Senators back down with just a threat of a filibuster. Why can't the Democratic Senators insist that the Republicans go ahead and filibuster and make an a** out of themselves. The fact that it is not present in people's faces makes this whole process too abstract. Just think of how many times this year alone the Republicans would have to get up in front of the American People and show what kind of obstructionists they really are.
Besides, they have no ideas. What are they going to talk about?
Make them filibuster and make them read Palin's speech she gave when she quit being governor of Alaska. Just make them read that speech over and over and I promise, they'll fold quickly.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
"And you know the only reason why Americans are getting fed up with the filibuster is because the liberal blogosphere has been getting this information out there to the American people."
But what has it accomplished? In January, 2009, when Ted Kennedy was still alive and the democrats had a 60-40 majority over the Republicans, it still took 60 votes to get anything passed. In February, 2010, with Ted Kennedy gone and a 59-40 majority of democrats over Republicans, it STILL takes 60 votes to get anything passed.
I do not credit the "liberal blogosphere" with doing one thing, except cramming my e-mail inbox with requests to call my Representative or Senator, and also begs for money. Perhaps the "liberal blogosphere" should kick back, have a cup of coffee or tea, and cork up the wine until such time as it accomplishes something of real usefulness, and THEN break out the wine to drink a toast to itself.
We sit here (at work) on our computers bitching, while the neocons whip up a misdirected fervor of hatred in this "Tea Party" BS. Where's the old fahioned Liberal outrage? I'm ready to take to the streets and raise some serious hell! Weak-ass tea baggers have gotten attention for too long!
"I'm ready to take to the streets and raise some serious hell!"
If you don't mind The Thinker joining you, I'd be right there at your side.
Back in the 60s, Martin Luther King and others got civil rights laws passed through marches, sit-ins, etc. I'm beginning to wonder if some similar actions might be necessary in this present age. I'm 67 and have always walked because I can't drive, and I'm at the age when I appreciate a ride. But I would definitely get out and march for the right cause.
Your system of government has broken down. The parliamentary system looks better all the time.
In a parliamentary democracy, a government with the kind of majority the Democrats won would have no problem whatsoever enacting its agenda.
It's effectively impossible for a minority party in the Canadian or British parliament to filibuster a government bill, because the government, by definition, holds a voting majority.
Where the government holds a minority, but has made a deal with another minority party to form a government, it can fail to win passage of bills, bring about the collapse of the government and a new election. But it's risky for the anti-government members of the coalition to force this - voters don't like frivolous elections. Minority parliaments generally fall only when the government has lost public support, which is as it should be in a democracy.
I know this is all beside the point - but it's so frustrating to look at what's going on in the US from outside and see how the desire of a clear majority for reform has been blocked by Republican tactics.
The founding fathers did not mean that there actually would be rule by the unwashed masses.
They meant for the system to be undemocratic.
Until 1913, the Senate was chosen by the State Legislatures.
The colonies won the war against Britain. The powerful were concerned that the masses were beginning to take the lofty rhetoric of the declaration of independence seriously and would therefore expect a somewhat equal distribution of the wealth of the continent.
This they very much wanted to avoid so they replaced the weak articles of confederation with the much stronger central government of the constitutional convention.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Rule was reserved for the washed masses. Cleanliness tests were
enacted in many states.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Now I know you have a bottle in front of you.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
could the Democrats just all agree to a special session and not tell any Republicans? You only need 51 for quorum. It is a dirty tactic but then again so is filibustering everything.
Americans are tired of ALL of it.
I may or may not vote for the democratic candidate - but hell is going to freeze over before I vote re=Tuglic.
*
I do believe hell will freeze over before the filibuster is not used in the senate.
Why? Because the corporate masters of both parties want to use the filibuster to block anything that benefits the poor and middle class at the expense of the rich and powerful.
"Americans are tired of ALL of it"
Sorry but I have a visceral reaction when I read stuff like that. Take a look at the Iranians they are getting beaten and murdered. Are they giving up? No! Yet in the country that in many ways invented representative democracy we are so lazy that when it takes more than a year to fix the mess left by the most inept administration in history we are all suddenly sick and tired and ready to throw in the towel. BTW, just what the republicans and Blue Dog dems want.
I've heard many people use arguments like this:
"If we get rid of the filibuster then when the republicans get the majority we won't be able to block all the evil things they try to do"
So my question is: what makes you think that if the republicans get the majority that THEY won't get rid of the filibuster? Because they are so respectful of past precedent? Because they plan for the future and can envision being back in the minority?
The only reason they didn't get rid of it last time is because the democrats wimped out and stopped using it. Its time for democrats to show some spine, we can't keep worrying about some hypothetical future, if we don't act now that future may never come.
The Republicans do not care about anything when it comes to winning. They have proven in the past that they will do anything to reach their ends.
Exactly . Like the Repugs will show restraint when they regain power ? Right . It's now or maybe never for the Dems and for the country , but I'm not getting my hopes up .
At the very least, anybody wishing to filibuster actually needs to filibuster. Make them stand there hour after hour presenting their case. If they have something substantial to say, great. On the other hand, if they are merely being obstructionists, sooner or later, even the idiots in the American populace may start catching on. This abuse of the filibuster without cost must come to an end
why the dems don't do that. I mean beyond the normal "they're spineless" generic reason. My best guess is that they fear getting roasted by the inane MSM if they actually forced the repubs to do that.
But for whatever the reason they don't so I still think amend the rules. As Rachel pointed out the other day the rules have been amended before its not a big deal. One other good compromise idea I've heard is give each party only X number of filibusters per month. Not sure if they could amend the law like that (e.g. what about independents or the Conneticuts for Douchebag, er I mean Lieberman party) but something needs to be done.
It's time for the Republicans to get Road Housed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDURfLc9u0g&fe...
Democrats that don't know how or simply won't govern when they have a majority.
And fuck the Senate for being a dysfunctional government body!
Are progressives planning any kind of national action for change? Maybe a march on Washington or something. Can we all just agree to meet at the Lincoln Memorial on March 20th or something? All this past autumn when the tea-baggers were out and we were calling and emailing congress I kept wondering why we can’t get crowd of our own. Anyone hear of anything? I know we work hard to get Obama elected but it is pretty obvious he needs a push to actually do anything.
Reid is a little bitch and has already dismissed the idea of changing the filibuster. I heard today that with 51 votes, it can be changed for the current Congress, a permanent change would require 67 votes.
The DNC should have been running anti-filibuster Ads months ago, when the handwriting was on the wall, and better yet the graph would have been clear about it.
You know, if the shoe were on the other foot (as we've actually seen), Repubs woud have orchestrated
marches, "Holy Sundays" and "Call your Senator" Ads galore.
Filibusters = Excuses. The Congress Dems will say that their hands are tied because Republicans, whom they OUTNUMBER, won't let them do anything.
Bull shit.
NOBODY 2012
I would ( comfortably ) bet that eighty percent of the voting population in this country doesn't even know what a filibuster is .
"filibuster" is when you fil up gas at Buster's Service Station and he ask how much gas you want. You say filibuster and the oil is OK. I'm one of the eighty % people, you think?
Comments are closed on this entry