Democrats: using regulatory power to silence political critics

As a Dem, I do have to say that the previous Congress wasn't much different as far as the obstructionist thing goes. Our guys did quite a bit when it came to doing whatever necessary to block legislation, etc. Many times, it was the right move and was for the greater good. Other times, it was merely to be a pain in the ass.

 

Bull. During the previous Congress Dems took pains to block things that they felt were very important to block -- particularly judicial nominees that they thought would cause huge problems. Meanwhile, they supported any nominee they didn't find 100% unconscionable, supported the war and then the funding of the war ALWAYS, supported the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, the drug bill, the tax cuts and on and on and on. The majority of Dems might have voted against some of those things, but they didn't get together as a bloc to willfully obstruct except in very specific cases (John Bolten, for example). Contrast that with the current Republican minority who has a stated strategy of obstructing everything.

It's not even close to the same thing. I don't say that because I'm a Democrat -- I disapprove of the current Congress too. I say it because it is just factually different. The last Congressional minority literally could not have been obstructionist in the way the Republicans are now because they didn't have a president on their side. It's not for nothing that Bush has suddenly discovered his veto power with the Dems in charge -- trying and failing, by the way, to enact only policies that have majority support around the country.

 

Oh you have to be kidding me. Figure it out for yourself. I'm not playing that game with you.

 

Projections have democrats picking up at least 9 to 12 senate seats in 08' giving them a solid 60 vote majority. We'll see then how much the minority party is relevant.

 

Mark Warner is running in Virginia and I think Bob Kerrey is running in Nebraska.

 

Right. The implication being that I don't have anything. The truth is I don't care to engage in your usual circular BS debate style which ultimately resolves itself with you disappearing yourself.

I was talking about the illegal spying mostly. You're complaining about intrusive government and you've defended illegal spying on US citizens again and again -- again, always running away in the end. But in more direct response to the gov't monitoring specific political beliefs and then censoring them I was also talking about the Bush admin's unprecedented program of weeding out all non-Republican Bush supporters from any of his speeches.

No admin in history has claimed or seized or asserted more power over the citizenry than the one that you support in all things 100%. And so it is ridiculous for you to cry bloody murder over anyone doing something similar.

And that is all. I'm not arguing with you today because it is a boring waste of time.

 

^^^ Let us not forget the Plame kurfuffle.

 

im not a democrat so i dont want to sound like im defending them, but i think the point is that the democrats havent been able to accomplish their agenda b/c they dont have a veto-proof majority. they have definitely offered up meaningful legislation, but w/out the veto-proof majority they cant get their agenda thru.

that being said, the party at large is still not trying to do what the country elected them to do, which is get us out of iraq and keep our criminal administration in check.

 

It was mentioned before, but in a more civil time in America, a simple majority was enough to pass legislation. But now it's required to have a 60 vote majority to overcome a "THREAT" of a filibuster. republicans have made it clear that it is part of their legislation strategy to block ANYTHING that comes up for a vote. And the headlines are "congress gets nothing done."

 

Every time I pop back into the D&D I remember a few things....

1. Liberalism is a mental disorder!
2. I wanna buy Trader_Jorge and all the other conservative (not republican) posters a beer.
3. Every time a conservative poster posts a comment some snotty nosed lib poster likes to come behind and belittle him, insult him, call him names, attack him on some level. And then the reference some article out of the NY Times....which totally proves my next point
4. Did I mention that liberalism is a mental disorder???

 

Does your mother have any living children?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09clea.html?ref=science

 

Not to derail the thread or anything...


Democratic-Led Congress Breaks Record For Highest Number Of Roll Call Votes In History

Conservatives have repeatedly criticized the Democratic-led Congress for not passing enough legislation. “I don’t think they’ve gotten anything done,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said in March. In July, he added that “Congressional Democrats” have “failed to deliver on any of their promises and have almost no accomplishments of which to speak.”

But a new Politico analysis finds that this 110th Congress has had more roll call votes this year than any other Congress in history, almost doubling the number under the previous Congress overseen by Boehner and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL):

The House last week held its 943rd roll call vote of the year, breaking the previous record of 942 votes, a mark set in 1978. The vote was on a procedural motion related to a mortgage foreclosure bill. When the House adjourned on Oct. 4 for the long weekend, the chamber had reached 948 roll call votes, putting Democrats on pace to easily eclipse 1,000 votes on the House floor in 2007.

Last year, the Republican controlled House held 543 votes, and for historical comparison, the last time there was a shift in power in Congress, Republicans held 885 roll call votes in 1995. The Senate, which has held 363 votes this year, isn’t on pace to break any records, but has already surpassed the 2006 Senate mark of 279 votes.

Much of the lack of progress can be traced back to obstructionism by conservatives. Approximately “1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes,” noted a July McClatchy report. “If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes.”

It’s interesting that Boehner is criticizing the 110th Congress as doing nothing. After all, the House, under his leadership, met for just 101 days during the second session of the 109th Congress, setting the record “for the fewest days in session in one year since the end of World War II.”

See a full list of the 110th Congress’s accomplishments HERE and HERE .

http://thinkprogress.org/

 

"...says a House leadership source"

 

You can thank some drunk named Ted Kennedy for that. He pushed the rule change through that said you don't actually have to actively debate to filibuster. If actually being in the Senate were required to filibuster, it wouldn't be used much.

 

I had heard that before, but don't know the details. You got a link weslinder?

But irregardless, it is undeniable that republicans are blocking as much legislation as possible to make congress look bad and create the perception that this democratic controlled congress sucks and can't get anything done. No doubt that the dems need to grow a spine (they always have), but to have the minority leader of congress question why things don't get done? please

 

I was about to post something along the same lines. This Congress has actually accomplished quite a bit but Iraq has pretty much overshadowed everything so the fact that the troops are still there gives the impression that it hasn't done anything. Even leaving out legislation this Congress has returned Congress to its oversight responsibility as a coequal branch rather than what we have seen in prior years.

 

I dug for one, and couldn't find a link. As I recall, the way the rule changes worked was this:

The Senate allows each Senator to speak twice on any particular version of a bill during debate. This has been so since the very early 1800s. At that time, any individual Senator could filibuster a bill if he could talk long enough.

In the 1920s, at Woodrow Wilson's request, the Senate changed the rules to allow for cloture. Then, 60% (it may have originally been more) could end debate. This ended the ability for a handful of Senators to filibuster a bill. Even then, a bill didn't have to be actively debated unless the Senate Majority Leader (may be President of the Senate) required it. But no matter how it was being filibustered, you couldn't move on to the next bill until cloture or it was removed from the debate.

During the 1980s, the rules were changed again so that debate could proceed on other bills even while one was being filibustered. So the consequence (if you can call it that) of a filibuster for the Senate as a whole isn't nearly as big a deal. I couldn't find that rule, and I certainly couldn't find who pushed for it.

I hope that's enough detail, and I'm sorry I don't have a link. There's a ton of information here about how the Senate works.