Tough to get stuff done when Reps are filibustering at a historic rate.

Progress on most major policy initiatives has been difficult in the Senate this year, due entirely to the fact that the chamber's Republicans have decided to filibuster practically everything that moves. Indeed, the Senate GOP is on track to block more legislation in the 110th Congress than any in history -- filibustering at triple the usual rate.

Indeed, it's kind of ironic that Trent Lott would even be involved in this. In April, he was the one boasting, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail ... and so far it's working for us."

I'm not happy with a lot the dems have done so far, but it's hard to blame them for stuff not getting done when they need 60 votes to override the filibusters and get the legislation to the prez's desk. Of course, when the Reps had control of Congress, the filibuster was considered an afront to democracy.... now it's a useful tool that's really "working for them." And remember how the media publicized every dem filibuster? When is the last (or first) time the media has covered a Rep filibuster?

Republicans are just trying to use whatever leverage they can to come up with the outcome that's most favorable to them. In the end a lot of these Democratic spending bills will pass, but the GOP is holding out, making sure Iraq money comes out with no withdrawal strings attached.

If the war was as unpopular as it was six months to a year ago right now, the Dems would be pulling out the stops to put the spotlight on the Republicans filibustering the Iraq withdrawal stuff, but right now the Dem caucus keeps putting out mixed messages on where they actually stand on the whole bit.

jerseyhoya wrote:Republicans are just trying to use whatever leverage they can to come up with the outcome that's most favorable to them. In the end a lot of these Democratic spending bills will pass, but the GOP is holding out, making sure Iraq money comes out with no withdrawal strings attached.
.

Fine, but when Dems did it they were unamerican and anti-democratic for blocking the majority rule of Congress, even though they were just trying to "come up with the outcome that's most favorable to them". And I'm not talking about the GOP blocking spending bills, which is the stuff that happens all the time. I'm talking about them blocking popular legislation like those listed in the Carpetbagger link off the link I provided.... bills such as the one guaranteeing habeus corpus, the one giving the residents of DC a voice, Webb's amendment giving troops the time off they are supposed to receive, the one including a withdrawal timeline, etc, etc, etc.

jerseyhoya wrote:If the war was as unpopular as it was six months to a year ago right now, the Dems would be pulling out the stops to put the spotlight on the Republicans filibustering the Iraq withdrawal stuff, but right now the Dem caucus keeps putting out mixed messages on where they actually stand on the whole bit.

Most of the examples I cited occurred over the summer and earlier and have little to do with the popularity of the Iraq war, which still is extremely unpopular, btw. You're not going to make me pull up all the polls showing how unpopular the war still is, are you?

As far as the media goes, they are supposed to cover this stuff fairly and equally, not bend to the whims of what either side wants. If they were doing their jobs, the GOP filibustering would be big news, but they're not, so it isn't.

The war is still unpopular, but the effect of the surge--lowering the level of violence and (more germane to the voting public) keeping the carnage off the front page and the nightly news--has reduced its saliency and immediacy as an issue.

Polls now show that people are thinking most about the economy and health care, in terms of issues they're concerned about. Iraq and terrorism are still there, and it would only take one high-profile incident to put them back at the top, but right now this looks like a domestic-focused election.

And, of course, political coverage in the country is all-election, all the time. I was watching C-SPAN this morning (I know, I know), and Durbin and Schumer were enraged at the obstructionism of Cornyn and Coburn even on non-controversial issues like creating a national registry of Lou Gehrig's Disease sufferers. I share the frustration, but there's no oxygen right now to put heat on the Republicans for it.

dajafi wrote:
And, of course, political coverage in the country is all-election, all the time. I was watching C-SPAN this morning (I know, I know), and Durbin and Schumer were enraged at the obstructionism of Cornyn and Coburn even on non-controversial issues like creating a national registry of Lou Gehrig's Disease sufferers. I share the frustration, but there's no oxygen right now to put heat on the Republicans for it.

To be fair, given how the Senate operates, there isn't much the Republicans could do to Coburn/Cornyn even if they wanted to. They can't even hurt them at the campaign funding level, since there are enough nutcases out there who like obstructionism and can fund any future things they might want to do.

I remember when they voted down the Webb amendment thing. That got some coverage. I don't know what kind of coverage you're looking for. I don't watch the nightly news programs, but I bet it was on them. It didn't get long term coverage like the judges fight did a few years ago because the Democrats didn't drag out the fight like the GOP did over judges. Plus that fight had a cool phrase, "nuclear option," that stuff sells papers.

As Jeff said, the media fixates on the horse race of elections, so a lot of this policy stuff gets swept under the rug. I don't think they're out to hurt the Dems on it, it's just the way the media works, unfortunately.

Bottom line, though, is it's all rhetorical bs. It's politics. When your stuff is getting blocked, you call the other side obstructionists. When blocking, you say you're fulfilling your rights as the minority to have a say in matters. It'd be ridiculous to call the Republicans hypocrites in the situation and leave the Democrats blameless. They were happy to use the same tool that's now biting them.

Not that he was going to win the state anyway, but Fred Thompson didn't even qualify for the primary ballot in Delaware, apparently.

It's like he's actively trying to lose.

jerseyhoya wrote:Bottom line, though, is it's all rhetorical bs. It's politics. When your stuff is getting blocked, you call the other side obstructionists. When blocking, you say you're fulfilling your rights as the minority to have a say in matters. It'd be ridiculous to call the Republicans hypocrites in the situation and leave the Democrats blameless. They were happy to use the same tool that's now biting them.

Yup. I have no problem with the Republicans doing this; I wish they wouldn't, on the merits, and I wish the Democrats could find a better way to counter it than impotent whining--but it's 100 percent legitimate. The filibuster saved us from some pretty horrible stuff in the 109th Congress; if it now stops us from getting some good things done, that's an acceptable price to pay. Our history suggests that these things work out in the long run.

dajafi wrote:The war is still unpopular, but the effect of the surge--lowering the level of violence and (more germane to the voting public) keeping the carnage off the front page and the nightly news--has reduced its saliency and immediacy as an issue. .

See, now you've gone and forced me to look it up....


Poll: Iraq tops election issues

Thirty-six percent of the poll's 1,006 respondents said Iraq, 16 percent said the economy, 15 percent said healthcare and 10 percent said illegal immigration.

Iraq has slipped somewhat since the last poll, but it's still far and away the most important issue.

Monkeyboy wrote:

dajafi wrote:The war is still unpopular, but the effect of the surge--lowering the level of violence and (more germane to the voting public) keeping the carnage off the front page and the nightly news--has reduced its saliency and immediacy as an issue. .

See, now you've gone and forced me to look it up....


Poll: Iraq tops election issues

Thirty-six percent of the poll's 1,006 respondents said Iraq, 16 percent said the economy, 15 percent said healthcare and 10 percent said illegal immigration.

Iraq has slipped somewhat since the last poll, but it's still far and away the most important issue.

Huh--thought I saw something different, perhaps in the David Brooks column from earlier this week. Serves me right for trusting that hack...

jerseyhoya wrote:
Bottom line, though, is it's all rhetorical bs. It's politics. When your stuff is getting blocked, you call the other side obstructionists. When blocking, you say you're fulfilling your rights as the minority to have a say in matters. It'd be ridiculous to call the Republicans hypocrites in the situation and leave the Democrats blameless. They were happy to use the same tool that's now biting them.

But that's just it, they didn't use the tool hardly at all. Instead, they backed down because of the media firestorm. I blame everyone involved: the dems for cowing to the pressure, the Reps for their stupid rhetoric, and the media for making it seem like the end of the world or something other than business as usual. Meanwhile, the Reps are using the filibuster at a historic rate and the media is ignoring it completely, which tells you something about the media, I think, even with the election cycle heating up. JMO.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Bottom line, though, is it's all rhetorical bs. It's politics. When your stuff is getting blocked, you call the other side obstructionists. When blocking, you say you're fulfilling your rights as the minority to have a say in matters. It'd be ridiculous to call the Republicans hypocrites in the situation and leave the Democrats blameless. They were happy to use the same tool that's now biting them.

Yup. I have no problem with the Republicans doing this; I wish they wouldn't, on the merits, and I wish the Democrats could find a better way to counter it than impotent whining--but it's 100 percent legitimate. The filibuster saved us from some pretty horrible stuff in the 109th Congress; if it now stops us from getting some good things done, that's an acceptable price to pay. Our history suggests that these things work out in the long run.

I disagree. The partisanship of the legislative serves to unbalance the constitutional system in favor of the executive. We have for all intents and purposes a parliamentary system of government.

I could have sworn it was you who urged me to read Mann and Ornstein's Broken Branch. Anyway, I have read it, and highly recommend it. The way Congress currently operates is doing real harm to this country.

There's been no meaningful legislation that had its origin in Congress in quite some time. Major initiatives come out of the White House, and thorny legislative issues are resolved by the courts, not the legislature.

It may be that Pelosi and co. are in fact laying the groundwork that might improve things, but I've not come across any indication that this kind of thing is going on behind the scenes.

That's actually a great point. Back to the mental drawing board.

No question but that it's now a parliamentary system. Maybe the Founders would have been psyched that it essentially took 205 years after the Constitution was ratified before that happened.

A parlimentary system with no discipline.

VoxOrion wrote:A parlimentary system with no discipline.

mmhmm - without the option of a confidence motion, the parliamentary form is kind of pointless.

TenuredVulture wrote:You really can't read anything into congressional approval ratings. People hate Congress, but incumbents win over 90% of the time.

People are pissed off at elites.

That, and I get the impression that the low congressional approval ratings also have something to do with Iraq... many of the Dems ran on the platform of getting out of Iraq, and we're still in Iraq.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTdif_Lvsk&e[/youtube]

So apparently they've moved from pistols to nukes. Jeez.

I wish Romney would put something like this out. They'd both get killed over it.

I suspect Peggy Noonan is on the "EVIL, FROM THE FRUITS OF THE DEVIL" list, but I thought some of you might like this analogy:

Peggy Noonan wrote:The way it was supposed to work, the logic, was this: People miss Bill. They miss the '90s. They miss the pre-9/11 world. So they'll love seeing him back in the White House. So they'll vote for Hillary. Because she'll bring him. "Two for the price of one."

It appears not to be working. Might it be that they don't miss Bill as much as everyone thought? That they don't actually want Bill back in the White House?

Maybe. But maybe it's this. Maybe they'd love to have him back in the White House. Maybe they just don't want him to bring her. Maybe they miss the Cuckoo's Nest and they'd love having Jack Nicholson's McMurphy running through the halls. Maybe they just don't miss Nurse Ratched. Does she have to come?

Link to the whole thing - she asks another good question - could Reagan ascend in this modern Republican party?

Peggy Noonan will always put the worst possible spin on the Democrats. Always. If people miss Bill Clinton as president, certainly I do, it might be because they miss peace, prosperity and competence. Also, they might miss a president with some intellectual curiosity, some interest in the opinions of others, even those who disagree.

FWIW, I was at a Capitals game the other night and for some reason, I forget why, they were putting pictures of politicians up on the video board during a stoppage. The pics of Hillary got loud (but not unanimous) boos. The other pics, including George W. Bush, got little reaction at all.

It's undeniable that Hillary sets off some people's hatred. Again, I've never understood it - I neither see what's so great or terrible about her.

But I guess we're about to find just how widespread her unpopularity is.