Donks in Senate trigger nuclear option

[GannonFan]

And the Democratic announced strategy for Bush's second term was exactly the same - obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. If you honestly think they both don't do it and that the Dems wouldn't outsidtance the GOP doing this if they became the minority you are not only wearing blinders, your eyes are closed too.

Yes both are bad, but I don't recall the Dems publicly announcing their strategy as ensuring Bush didn't get re-elected like McConnell did.

Regarding the filibuster stat, I'm sure you're right regarding back door deals and such but that doesn't make Jon's stat bogus either.

One side can be worse than another when it comes to these type of things. Or, depending on your point of view, one side can be better. The Republicans appear to be much better at unity and less inclined to compromise. This should make conks such as yourself…happy.

You keep trying to label me as a conk and you keep not having anything to hang your hat on regarding that - it's like you just want to label someone so you can ignore them. Why are you afraid of the debate? Surely you're not just another partisan who will stick to the talking points and pointedly ignore the other side?

Sure there were Dems who said they wouldn't work with Bush (well, except for things they agreed on, which, since it was little, meant they wouldn't work together) just as there are GOP'ers today who won't work with Obama. And of course, the willingness of the President to work with Congress needs to be taken into account too - I don't recall Bush continually pointing to past elections and using that as the reason why not to negotiate with others. But it's clearly a two-sided affair here.

And yes, jon's stat, while technically correct, is bogus in that it doesn't matter. Like I said, the backdoor deals are signigicantly more prevalent, so focusing on a tiny sliver of data while ignoring the rest is bogus. If anything, it proves that the Republicans are more showy in their blockage of nominees than Dems were in the past Congress, but that's just a question of style as opposed to actual tactics. Hence the bogusness.

And yes, one side can be worse than the other in terms of obstructing, but in this case, all we've seen for the past 20 years is each side one uppoing the other side when the power flips. The GOP is worse than the Dems were previously, but the Dems were worse than the GOP that came before them, and so on. If the GOP somehow gets Christie elected in 2016 look for the Dems to be worse than the GOP was this time (although again, the impact of the Presidential influence in those matters might come into play, especially if Chrisitie can live up to his reputation as a deal maker - time will tell, Obama was supposed to be a transofrmative President and that never materialized so there is always the difference between the promise and the reality). Wel'll see.

[clenz]

Stole this from facebook.

I can't read what the words say BUT it shows how partisan this country has become




Would be interesting to see what 07ish looked like

[kalm]

Yes both are bad, but I don't recall the Dems publicly announcing their strategy as ensuring Bush didn't get re-elected like McConnell did.

Regarding the filibuster stat, I'm sure you're right regarding back door deals and such but that doesn't make Jon's stat bogus either.

One side can be worse than another when it comes to these type of things. Or, depending on your point of view, one side can be better. The Republicans appear to be much better at unity and less inclined to compromise. This should make conks such as yourself…happy.

You keep trying to label me as a conk and you keep not having anything to hang your hat on regarding that.

Other than your posts.

(I appreciate your views Ganny...I really do. But on certain issues, you swing pretty far to the establishment side which is very conk-like. No shame in that though and you make some damn fine arguments) )

[Skjellyfetti]

Stole this from facebook.

I can't read what the words say BUT it shows how partisan this country has become




Would be interesting to see what 07ish looked like

That's awesome.

Data visualization can give me a hardon sometimes.

[GannonFan]

You keep trying to label me as a conk and you keep not having anything to hang your hat on regarding that.

Other than your posts.

(I appreciate your views Ganny...I really do. But on certain issues, you swing pretty far to the establishment side which is very conk-like. No shame in that though and you make some damn fine arguments) )

I would be a pretty odd duck if I didn't sometimes agree with the conk views on a particular issue. Just as I would if I didn't sometimes agree with the donk view on a particular issue. Neither party is wrong all the time, despite how partisan they are these days, so they are bound to have the same position I do.

[AZGrizFan]

(I appreciate your views Ganny...I really do. But on certain issues, you swing pretty far to the establishment side which is very conk-like. No shame in that though and you make some damn fine arguments) )

Uh.....the "establishment" is currently very "donk-oriented"....

[GannonFan]

(I appreciate your views Ganny...I really do. But on certain issues, you swing pretty far to the establishment side which is very conk-like. No shame in that though and you make some damn fine arguments) )

Uh.....the "establishment" is currently very "donk-oriented"....

Nah, in kalm's view, the Dems act like Dems when they do good things, and when they do bad things then they are still Dems but they are acting like GOP'ers. It's donk logic and kalm is a donk so....

[dbackjon]

Not at all - it is very clear that the GOP policy from day one of the Obama administration has been to obstruct, obstruct and obstruct.

This was a stated goal of the GOP.

Take off your "non-partisan" blinders to see the reality of the situation.

And the Democratic announced strategy for Bush's second term was exactly the same - obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. If you honestly think they both don't do it and that the Dems wouldn't outsidtance the GOP doing this if they became the minority you are not only wearing blinders, your eyes are closed too.

They voted on his nominees. YOU are the one that is out of touch with reality

[dbackjon]

1. Mitch McConnell (KY)

“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote” (5/19/05).

“Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate” (5/22/05).

2. John Cornyn (TX)

“ilibusters of judicial nominations are uniquely offensive to our nation’s constitutional design” (6/4/03).

“embers of this distinguished body have long and consistently obeyed an unwritten rule not to block the confirmation of judicial nominees by filibuster. But, this Senate tradition, this unwritten rule has now been broken and it is crucial that we find a way to ensure the rule won’t be broken in the future” (6/5/03).

3. Lamar Alexander (TN)

“If there is a Democratic President and I am in this body, and if he nominates a judge, I will never vote to deny a vote on that judge” (3/11/03).

“I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee. Period” (6/9/05).

4. John McCain (AZ)

“I’ve always believed that . There has to be extraordinary circumstances to vote against them. Elections have consequences” (6/18/13).

5. Chuck Grassley (IA)

“It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60” (2/11/03).

“e can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation” (5/8/05).

6. Saxby Chambliss (GA)

“I believe is in violation of the Constitution” (4/13/05).

7. Lindsey Graham (SC)

“I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional” (5/23/05).

8. Johnny Isakson (GA)

“I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate” (5/19/05).

9. James Inhofe (OK)

“This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution” (3/11/03).

10. Mike Crapo (ID)

“he Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees” (5/25/05).

11 . Richard Shelby (AL)

“Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it” (11/12/03).

12. Orrin Hatch (UT)*

Filibustering judicial nominees is “unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional” (1/12/05).

*Hatch claims he still opposes filibusters of judicial nominees and often votes “present” instead of “no” on cloture votes. But as Drew noted: “Because ending a filibuster requires 60 ‘yes’ votes, voting ‘present’ is identical to voting ‘no.’ Hatch’s decision to vote ‘present’ is an affirmative decision to continue the filibuster.”

[93henfan]

While all this shit is going on, have any of these fuckers done anything about the next looming Goverment shutdown in January that they kicked three months down the road?

I didn't think so.

[kalm]

Uh.....the "establishment" is currently very "donk-oriented"....

Nah, in kalm's view, the Dems act like Dems when they do good things, and when they do bad things then they are still Dems but they are acting like GOP'ers. It's donk logic and kalm is a donk so....

The two parties ARE the establishment, both pander to monied interests which you fully support. To their credit, I think the conks stay truer to their convictions.

Meanwhile, the rest of the country polls far more progressive on many issues and recognizes the negative influence that special interests like Wall Street have on the system...kinda like Kalm.

[JohnStOnge]

If I had my way fillibusters wouldn't matter because it would take super majorities of both houses of Congress to pass any legislation. I think we'd all be a lot better off if it were more difficult for Congress to pass laws and when they did it would take an overwhelming consensus to do it. We have way to many laws. It'd be nice to have a "governor" on the legislative process to slow things down.

Except I think a simple majority would still be fine to repeal laws. Simple majority to repeal. Super majority of 2/3 of both houses to enact. That would be great.

Oh...and with Presidential nominees 2/3 vote of the Senate for confirmation as a matter of course.

Let's amend the Constitution and get this stuff done.

[JohnStOnge]

Stole this from facebook.

I can't read what the words say BUT it shows how partisan this country has become




Would be interesting to see what 07ish looked like

That's awesome.

Data visualization can give me a hardon sometimes.

Looks like a norovirus particle dividing except viruses don't divide. They replicate.

[BlueHen86]

Horrible move by the donks here. The problem isn't the number of votes needed to pass a law, the problem is that nobody in Washington is trying to work together. This change doesn't fix the problem, it just means that they are less likely to try and work together.

[CID1990]

Horrible move by the donks here. The problem isn't the number of votes needed to pass a law, the problem is that nobody in Washington is trying to work together. This change doesn't fix the problem, it just means that they are less likely to try and work together.

This change just means that the Donks know they are going to lose their Senate majority in 2014. Look for an a$$load of judicial and other appointments to be rammed through over the next 8 months.

[ASUMountaineer]

Dback is close to a meltdown. Bless his partisan-hack heart.

[JohnStOnge]

Horrible move by the donks here. The problem isn't the number of votes needed to pass a law, the problem is that nobody in Washington is trying to work together. This change doesn't fix the problem, it just means that they are less likely to try and work together.

I think they've worked together way too much. We'd be a lot better off if Congress had done a lot less over the last 100 to 150 years. We NEED a "do nothing" Congress and we've needed it for a long time.

[BlueHen86]

Horrible move by the donks here. The problem isn't the number of votes needed to pass a law, the problem is that nobody in Washington is trying to work together. This change doesn't fix the problem, it just means that they are less likely to try and work together.

I think they've worked together way too much. We'd be a lot better off if Congress had done a lot less over the last 100 to 150 years. We NEED a "do nothing" Congress and we've needed it for a long time.

The donks aren't doing this because they want to do less, they are doing this because they want to do more; and they don't want conks standing in their way. Your wish for a simple majority doesn't jive with your wish for a do nothing congress. You should like the filibuster.