pacino wrote:back in the day, it wasn't used.

I'm sure when we couldn't pass drilling in Alaska, get judges through and make the tax cuts permanent thanks to that stubborn minority jamming things up you were out banging on pots and pans calling for the filibuster to be eliminated.

This system is doing exactly what it's supposed to do. I can understand why it's irritating when things line the Patriot Act go through without a hitch but bills like the jobs bill get beaten to death, but I'm not so sure I'd want to change the difficulty of passing a bill. Especially with a public as fickle as we are.

I hate when these threads get into partisan whiz-for-distance contests, but the use of the filibuster since '07--for really routine stuff, just to slow *everything* down--is unprecedented. It also had a different shape and purpose when the parties were more ideologically heterodox.

Maybe the answer is either to limit the applicability of the filibuster to certain kinds or scopes of legislation. Or the shrinking-margin proposal where it takes 60 votes to break it the first time, then 57, then 54, then a bare majority.

But none of these things will happen this year... and a part of me is going to laugh like hell when the Republicans next have majorities and the first thing they do is abolish it because "the American people voted us in to enact our agenda of robust growth, strong defense and traditional values, not kowtow to the obstructionist defeatism of the Democrat Party."

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:back in the day, it wasn't used.

I'm sure when we couldn't pass drilling in Alaska, get judges through and make the tax cuts permanent thanks to that stubborn minority jamming things up you were out banging on pots and pans calling for the filibuster to be eliminated.

so what? it shouldn't be there

i'm not sure how tough that is to take in. that's what i think.


currently 290 bills held up in the senate which were passed by the house

dajafi wrote:But none of these things will happen this year... and a part of me is going to laugh like hell when the Republicans next have majorities and the first thing they do is abolish it because "the American people voted us in to enact our agenda of robust growth, strong defense and traditional values, not kowtow to the obstructionist defeatism of the Democrat Party."

That would be pretty funny. They could call it an act of bi-partisanship!

If the health care bill was remotely popular, the Democrats might actually make the Republicans filibuster. That would make for good TV. We did that with the judges a few times.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:back in the day, it wasn't used.

I'm sure when we couldn't pass drilling in Alaska, get judges through and make the tax cuts permanent thanks to that stubborn minority jamming things up you were out banging on pots and pans calling for the filibuster to be eliminated.

I'm honestly beginning to worry that a majority of Republicans would rather see the country go into default than accept that taxes can't keep getting lower forever, and/or court the political risk inherent in saying that if you want super-low taxes, you can't have Social Security and Medicare.

jerseyhoya wrote:If the health care bill was remotely popular, the Democrats might actually make the Republicans filibuster. That would make for good TV. We did that with the judges a few times.

The "bill" isn't popular, yet everything in it is. Weird.

It depends. If by most Republicans you mean Republican voters, I think you wouldn't have seen a lot of the spending we saw in the Bush years. There are Republicans in Congress who would probably choose defaulting on our debt over raising taxes, to show that we need to restrain spending or some such bullshit. There's probably something approaching a majority of the caucus who would literally need to be convinced that we will default to vote to raise taxes.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If the health care bill was remotely popular, the Democrats might actually make the Republicans filibuster. That would make for good TV. We did that with the judges a few times.

The "bill" isn't popular, yet everything in it is. Weird.

Then the Democrats should sack up and try and make the GOP stage a filibuster. Bring up items individually. Try something different. They're going to lose the House and come within a seat or two of losing the Senate at this pace. Things literally can't get worse. Problem is creativity is not something that is usually found in congressional leadership. Maybe Rahm can yell at them.

The thing is, even when they had 60 votes, they STILL couldn't make that work. They're just... so... stupid. I don't want the filibuster broken, it's needed for when congress is inevitably placed back in Republican hands.

And if they had any balls or creativity whatsoever, they wouldn't be in this mess. They're actually close to a dominating run if they can stay in control for when the economy inevitably picks up steam.

In other news Ron Paul won the staw poll at the CPAC.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If the health care bill was remotely popular, the Democrats might actually make the Republicans filibuster. That would make for good TV. We did that with the judges a few times.

The "bill" isn't popular, yet everything in it is. Weird.

Then the Democrats should sack up and try and make the GOP stage a filibuster. Bring up items individually. Try something different. They're going to lose the House and come within a seat or two of losing the Senate at this pace. Things literally can't get worse. Problem is creativity is not something that is usually found in congressional leadership. Maybe Rahm can yell at them.

Bringing up the provisions of the bill individually doesn't work because the package only works as a package. Passing the popular stuff--banning exclusion for pre-existing conditions, etc--without the individual mandate actually makes the whole system worse. This was what the Dems accepted when they made the decision to try and expand coverage through the private insurance system rather than doing Medicare for all.

(And yet it's still somehow a GUMMIT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE.)

[edit: earlier, I should have written "yet almost everything in it is." My bad.]

What I gather you're saying, and I agree completely, is that the Democrats are horrible, just horrible, at politics. Part of it is the problem of having a big caucus; I read somewhere recently that one of them said they'd be in a better position if the 25 rightmost Dems in the House were replaced by 25 moderate Republicans. Putting aside that moderates can't win Republican primaries anymore, it makes a lot of sense.

But the only way out for them is through. I think they have to pass this thing and then defend it. That accomplishment won't bring back the '08 Obama voter who got into it because all her friends were into it, but at least it might stop someone like me from insta-deleting every piece of email I get from any Democrat because I think they're hopelessly inept cowards.

On the other question, do you really think the Republicans will control themselves on spending (including tax cuts) when they get back in?

dajafi wrote:On the other question, do you really think the Republicans will control themselves on spending (including tax cuts) when they get back in?

If Obama is still president, probably

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:On the other question, do you really think the Republicans will control themselves on spending (including tax cuts) when they get back in?

If Obama is still president, probably

Fair point. Divided government during an economic upturn might be the only way we stop digging the hole deeper.

I miss these BSG exchanges. Maybe I shouldn't have taken a real job...

Hah, the politics thread has been pretty dead. Don't know how much of that is lack of things happening and how much is you being gainfully employed.

If my posting here declines as much as it should with going back to school, I think the soccer threadt might die.

And this thread might be a lot more policy oriented but more dead. Or who knows school might teach me up and I can engage in the hard stuff.

Oh man, a buddy of mine who now works for the junior senator from Massachusetts had his name uttered by El Rushbo on air today. I'm not sure what the liberal equivalent of this achievement is, but that's really cool for him.

dajafi wrote:Maybe the answer is either to limit the applicability of the filibuster to certain kinds or scopes of legislation.

Ohh, ohh! How about like the NFL replay thing. Each team gets two, so use 'em wisely Give 'em red flags too