Obstructionism

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wiseacre, Jun 4, 2012.

  1. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Much is written and said about the obstructionist Repubs in the House and Senate. But it ain't just one side of the aisle here, it's both sides depending on who's in the majority and who's in the WH. There is an op-ed in today's WSJ, sorry no link, it's proprietary, that talks about what goes on. I'd like to stress that in this case it's the Dems, but as the article says, both sides play all kinds of tricks and manuevers to benefit their side. Consider this:

    On March 19, the Dems introduce a bill in the Senate to promote renewable energy, paying for it by raising taxes on the oil companies. Normally, the bill would go into a particular committee for action, but Harry Reid bypasses the committee and puts the bill directly onto the Senate schedule. Two days later he initiates a process to call up the bill and immediately files a cloture motion to end debate on it. The following monday the Senate votes 92-4 to end the debate (on the cloture motion, not the bill itself). The next day, Reid brings the bill to the floor and immediately offers 5 amendments to the bill and a motion to preclude any more amendments or motions. He then files a motion for cloture, ending any debate before it got started. Two days later the Senate votes along party lines to reject cloture and the bill dies. (You don't vote on a bill until a cloture vote to end debate on it has passed with at least 60 votes. Except maybe appropriations.)

    So, were the Repubs obstructionists here? They didn't get the chance to offer any amendments or debate on it. No committee discussions or changes were possible, no chance to filibuster anything. No, the ability for the Senate to take meaningful action was preempted by the Majority Leader, through parliamentary maneuvers. Our form of gov't is designed for majority rule, but it's also designed so that the minority is not steamrollered with no voice or power. So why do it?

    For political reasons, obviously. An effort to make the Repubs look obstructionist. But also to avoid forcing the Dems to take a vote and go on record for tough issues. That's called cowardice; it sure as hell isn't leadership. The op-ed notes that both sides do it, undoubtedly true. That's one reason why the favorability rating for Congress is in the mid to low teens, and has been for quite awhile.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
  2. Seawytch
    Offline

    Seawytch Information isnt Advocacy

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    28,998
    Thanks Received:
    3,962
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Peaking out from the redwoods
    Ratings:
    +7,043
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Luddly Neddite
    Offline

    Luddly Neddite Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    53,216
    Thanks Received:
    8,455
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +20,829
    Title and author of the op/ed please.
     
  4. Darkwind
    Offline

    Darkwind Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Messages:
    14,150
    Thanks Received:
    2,593
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,265
    I defy anyone to post here showing ONE instance of a Republican getting up to speak and not stopping until the bill was rescinded.

    This is what a filibuster is. Not once has the GOP in the Senate filibustered a bill. The threat of a fillibuster is NOT a filibuster.
     
  5. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194

    "The Surprising Truth About Senate Obstructionism", by Brian Reardon and Eric Ueland.
     
  6. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    55,976
    Thanks Received:
    9,333
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +24,525
  7. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    What's with the Gay Marriage link?

    What're you trying to say with the graph? You think the numbers from 2007-08 mean anything?
     
  8. Luddly Neddite
    Offline

    Luddly Neddite Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    53,216
    Thanks Received:
    8,455
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +20,829
  9. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,407
    Thanks Received:
    2,247
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,732
    That meeting the republicans had on inauguration night to swear a blood oath to defy 100% of anything Obama wanted was way over the top of anything democrats ever did in the obstruction game.
     
  10. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    For G5000 and Luddly and everyone else - you gotta be a WSJ subscriber to see all of the op-ed.
     

Share This Page