There has been a call to end the fillibuster. Hell. There's been calls to end it for a long time. It ain't gonna happen.
As important as health care reform and other pressing issues are, they all take a back seat to the power and money grabbing tendencies of most in the senate.
What would happen if a simple majority could end the Iraq occupation? Our Troops could come home and defend our borders and ports. We would save billions. We would have the resources necessary to rebuild New Orleans and truly help Haiti. But the most important thing to many of our senators is keeping the cash cow mooing upon them with donations from big insurance and defense contractors. Or dickbrains like LIEberman and Nelson that want to hold up legislation for either revenge or pork. (In LIEberman's case, it's revenge and pork.)
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a notorious and despicable mouthpiece for the right lies like hell. They don't want reduced government spending. They want more.
The Tea Baggers claim to want less government. Bullshit. These jokers are angry because they were manipulated into being angry. Look at the signs at their rallies. "Tell government to keep it's hands off Medicare." Fucking mindless idiots they are.
Nah. Fillibusters will remain a part of the Senate rules. There's too much money to be made to end them.
36 comments:
I am afraid that you are right. The filibuster is here to stay. It serves the "powers that be", who ever they are.
I find it interesting that the republicans could pass whatever they wanted with a 50 vote majority and the Democrats cannot with a 60 (well, now 59) vote majority.
Also, the filibuster can be ended with a simple majority vote -- the nuclear option that Bill Frist threatened to use on 2005.
What would happen if a simple majority could end the Iraq occupation?
Actually, foreign policy and the military are under the authority of the President, not Congress.
Cut the funding.
Truth, I learned from Infidel that the filibuster can be modified ot ended with just 51 votes, if done on the first day of a new session, when the rulef for the session are set. We just missed it. The next opportunity is next January.
Do we have 51 Democrats we can trust to get that done TomCat?
Or to be more open, are there enough we can bribe with new shit for their states to do this. Nelson and Landreu need their stuff.
Preferably we'd have 51 we can trust so we could tell those two plus LIEberman to piss off.
actually the fillibuster is a weapon that is used by the minority to place a check upon the power of the majority.
the same can be said of a presidential veto of any bill.
The system is broken.
Unless the Dems get off their asses big time, and vote their conscience instead of worrying about getting reelected.
We will be hearing a muted Q-U-A-C-K-
Q-U-A-C-K from Obama and the Congress Critters. Independents, Independents was, and is, the clue. Obama and the Dems are losing them hand over fist.
I know you love your democratic party Truth....but they have left you....
Its time for liberals to have a litmus test...its time that we march in the street and demand the return of our country to the people and to Main Street...
Its time that we raised a little hell and threatened a few folks...
TAO, LOL. I wish. I have been saying the same thing. Take it to the streets. They will not do it about the endless wars. They will not bring back the draft for that reason.
The people will need to feel more Bankster pain before they go to the streets over the financial serfdom that we have. The American people have now been programmed to take and accept the crumbs that they are handed to them. We deserve the best government that MONEY can buy.
Seriously-this is exactly what I think as well. I respect and do not disagree with the comments. Most of us want something like this (simple majority) to happen and there have been many other occasions in the last nine years where we wanted other things that were important to us to happen as well. I just say we've gotten nothing and we're not going to get anything from these fuckers in DC now or in the future and to think it's going to change given the history after so many years is being naive. Now don't slap me too hard for saying that.
It's like when the fuck is Harriet Myers gonna show up and testify about them judges? Rover did show- you couldn't see him behind that closed door but what the fuck did he have to say?
There are hundreds of stories like that and as far as I'm concerned we've not won many if any at all.
The Dems have tools to use but have chose not to whether it's about accountability or procedural as was brought up.
I think many have gotten the shut fuck up or else treatment with the or else meaning just that. I've had a bad feeling about this for a long time.
I just read where Brown made a speech this evening announcing that he is for nationalized healthcare....
He supports the Massachusetts plan....
Wouldn't that be the reactionary rights worst nightmare!!!!
My bitterness is that obvious TAO?
One Fly summarizes my problems well. Perhaps one day my slavery to loyalty will diminish and I can walk with TAO and RZ down Main St. America demanding an end to gridlock and misery of our two party system.
101; I do not consider it [slavery to loyalty]. I think it is more of a mind set of living in the past.
A past where a Democrat was a Democrat. Where he, or she was not ashamed of being called a liberal. Where Dems stood up and were counted to help, and vote for the welfare of its citizens. Those were noble causes and honorable people. This all changed when Congress was purchased by the Corps. and their lobbyists. We now have very high priced hookers governing our country. I can not stress enough. ---THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN---. They are trying to save that broken system for their own gains and profits.
RE; " two party system"? Try one. The Corporate Party of the U.S.A.
Americans are quick to forgive. Yet they have no patience. And no memory span.
I know Brother. Perhaps it's too much to hope that I can have a small part of saving the Democratic Party from it's life of prostitution for the fat cats.
To me when they began triangulation under Clinton is when they changed.I have that loyalty too Truth.I alternate between that, and complete bitter disgust at what happened to it.
Reconciliation must be ended. It started as a financial bill process only. Then Republicans used it 26 times on all sorts of other legislation. It has the unintended effect of minority rule. The minority can't pass anything, but they can stop everything. We did fine for 200 years as simple majority vote, we should go back to that.
I have no problem taking to the streets, except I'm to old. I did that 40 years ago.
Democrats have never been a group easily united. Republicans have unity and group think. As distasteful as those traits are to liberals, they have to learn that lesson as a political power.
If one senator stood up and wanted a vote to change the filibuster law, he/she would lose 99-1.
I know that I'm preaching to the choir here but the only way to enact any real change in this government is to institute a comprehensive system of term limits for both houses of congress. Nothing ever changes because the career politicians occupying the seats of power rarely ever change themselves.
There, now we can all go back to bitching about all of the assholes who don't give a damn about us and our country anyway. I know I feel better...
A lefty that agrees with me on term limits. Salvation at last!
Thank you JBW.
I gotta say, I think there's a place for filibustering. It's part of parliamentary tradition in the British Commonwealth just as it is part of the U.S. system. The problem in the U.S. is that your rules give too much power to dickheads. Change the rules to allow a simple 51 Senators to invoke closure (or cloture, if you will) and you've solved the problem, methinks.
I really appreciate you ability to find fault with all the conservative groups and those who don't immediately conform. The bitterness is quite entertaining.
Tom: We did fine for 200 years as simple majority vote, we should go back to that.
I have to correct this horrific misperception, because thinking that increasing the role of democracy will fix the political mess is the biggest reason we're in the mess we're in.
We actually started out where we didn't vote for President at all and didn't vote for Senators. The Senate, as a body elected by the states, acted as a check on the often mindless will of the people. Rules that slowed down the deliberative body (Senate) from reacting to the passionate, yet ill-informed populace were necessary in that sense. Not surprisingly, when it's a matter of buying votes, the government (both Democrat and Republican) tends to perpetuate itself, just squabbling over who gets the scraps.
So as long as we have the two wings of the federal government operating under the same psychology, those rules are the only thing that stands between us and lots of really stupid shit.
One thing this Senate race has reminded me of is the need to give the 17th amendment the boot.
Your keen insight and unique take on the issues are always welcome here Patrick.
I hope 2010 is good to you my friend.
Truth,
I agree with Patrick on a couple of issues. One the 17th Amendment ended the ability of the states to place a senator that acted in their interest. Under direct election, senators are forced to run as a national candidate making state matters secondary.
The Representatives have always been those elected by the people and answerable to their sliver of the state. The senator in turn protected the interests of the state in the Senate.
A simple majority vote is subject to all kinds of problems and as Patrick said, sometimes mindless democracy. In pre-Mussolini Italy, the democracy dissolved in unmanageable factions making majority rule impossible. Enter strongman Mussolini.
JBW,
We have a common wish for term limits. With a 98% reelecion rate for congress, something is broken. Is it any wonder that over 70% of the American people feel that the politicians lust for power and are not in it for public service?
Truth,
I've said before, those who are beating the drum to get rid of the filibuster, better watch what they wish for. With the normal ebb and flow of politics, either party could find themselves in the minority.
Filibuster helps prevent the tyranny of the majority, always a concern of the founders. The filibuster is not a recent creation. It dates all the way back to the Roman republic.
Good day sir. Your replies are thoughtful and incisive. "A"
Politics is local. Bring home the bacon and you get reelected. No new highways pisses off voters more than views on Iraq or judicial appointments. The senators will act in the interests of their states. They all want the pork LaOT.
I answered Patrick on his fine blog. His topic. I think it's right to discuss at his house, Thanks for stopping by.
Change is tough and scary, and while there may be immediate benefits, I'm not so sure that any of these proposals are good ideas.
As others have said, the filibuster has the effect of cooling the heated but transitory passions of the people. Used correctly, it's a tool "the minority [can wield] to place a check upon the power of the majority," but when misapplied, it can also become a weapon used to create and enforce a tyranny of the minority over the majority. Obviously, it can be so (mis)used, and even when it isn't, it's use often makes the reforms and other "scary" changes to the status quo that liberals--(because liberals are more likely to initiate changes to the status quo than conservatives)--want to enact more difficult to obtain, but even so, I don't believe that simple majority rule is a good idea in all cases.
Rather, I would like to see it's use made more difficult--the way it used to be, when "Mr Smith went to Washington," and one had to literally hold the floor & keep talking--and I'd like there to be more of a cost to misapplying or overusing it among the American people--the folks need to say NO to continuous negativity. While there's a place for the super-majority in making our laws, it becomes the de facto "simple" majority when a significant number of votes require 60 ayes to pass.
Part of me likes the idea of term limits--because I agree that the longer one is in office, the more likely corruption becomes, and the more difficult an elected rep is to remove--but I also think there is value in having folks there who know what the fuck is going on, and how it all works. (Now, an AGE limit...) But then, I suppose 3 senate terms is enough... We do have the opportunity to stagger 'em, so that at least one of our senators knows where the executive washrooms are...
(One idea I do like in this regard is the single, six-year term for President. It would increase the power of the office--subject to the wishes of Congress, of course--and remove all that time and energy the POTUS wastes worrying about and running for reelection.)
As for having state legislatures appointing federal senators, I'd have to give that more thought. I agree that it's easier to bribe and manipulate the few, rather than the many, but perhaps the state needs representation apart from the people. How would (or did) it work in terms of term limits, and/(or) the ability of a newly constituted legislature to recall/replace the senators appointed by a previous legislature? (I'll read up... There's no need to answer--unless you're proposing something different than was done prior to the 17th Amendment, in which case you'll have to let me know. And besides... We're not talking about that here, except that I just did... 8>) ((Sorry Truth, but it is all kinda connected, though... Representative democracy vs direct democracy, in all cases...))
While direct democracy sounds good, it looks a whole lot more like mob rule to me in practice. The recall of Gray Davis and voting on the rights of gay folks to marry (both in CA) were ugly, ugly things, both in execution & result, and put me off the idea that the mob always knows best.
Got no problem with a six year term for president. I won a quiz bowl with that answer in 1978. The answer was Gerald Ford, he came out for one six year term,
Two terms is plenty for a senator. If you can't accomplish your goals in twelve years what difference will another six make?
Okay Kennedy Democrats of which my Mom was one of the diehardest. Let me have it.
I think the issue of term limits is moot.
The real 'disease' that you are attempting to treat is the fact that money unduly influences politics; politicians can be bought.
With term limits you will see more corruption not less because elected officials and their staff, will have less time to fatten themselves.
Term limits would also make unelected staff and administrative people more powerful because in an environment of ever changing elected officials the only ones who will understand how things work would be the 'enunches'
As long as the money flows into politics nothing will change...you can change rotate the elected officials but the money will still flow...
With the newest Supreme Court ruling it is just a matter of time before special interests can fund their own candidates and the whole issue of term limits really becomes absurd.
You are trying to punish the junkie for his addiction while doing nothing to the person that supplies the drugs to the junkie...
If you were an elected official and someone offers you a multimillion dollar opportunity would you turn it down?
If you want to punish the the whore then punish the pimp too!
Short of executing the bastards like China does, what's the answer?
The scumbags will always find a way to screw the system.
Truth, the reality is if some balance isn't restored then we just might end up shooting the bastards...
The key is balance because that is what stabilizes a society but what we are seeing is a absolute polarization.
The whole financial meltdown, TARP, and the resulting recession have basically ripped the cover off the reality of what purpose our government serves and who's interest our elected officials really represent.
Supply side economics represented a pack made with the devil where in return for jobs and cheap consumer goods we would allow corporate America to do whatever they so desired in regards to poltiics...
Now remember, the Great Depression started in 1929 and the country lived through hell and did not elect FDR till 1932.
Right now we are in the twilight zone of the 1929-1932 period...and we are waiting for something to change.
Realistically we are going to witness a double dip recession and probably have already.
The anger and frustration of the electorate that was directed at the Republicans in 2008 and is now being directed at the Democrats is proof positive that if something doesn't change real quick then Obama may look like a conservative compared to what we might be dealing with in a few years....
Even FDR looked good to conservatives in comparsion to the likes of Huey Long and the emerging strength of the Socialists and Communists who were marching in the streets at the same time...
Repsac: I'll one-up the idea of the single six-year term with another idea. Get rid of the electoral college AND the idea of popular vote, and have the president selected by the House and confirmed by the Senate (after killing the 17th amendment, of course.
Tao: Again I have to correct a couple key points (as always).
Supply-side economics on its own was not the cause of the mess we were in. It was a combination of those economic policies with the continued assumption that we functioned in an economy that was primarily domestic. But by this time, we were in an era where it was cheap enough to ship things, especially with the continually-increasing tax burden (despite rate cuts, which is only one of a myriad of taxes) that makes shipping stuff from China cheaper.
Now the first years of the depression were not ruled by free and easy government policy, but attempts by the government to "control" the economy. The difference between the waning years of Hoover and the rise of FDR were twofold. First, FDR threw a lot more money, rather than just government trying to steer the economy. Second, FDR made people feel he "cared."
And despite the failing in regulation that triggered the depression, the government's rush to "fix" the problem prolonged the whole mess for a decade.
If the filibuster were to be ended on the first day of a new session, the motion to do so would not be subject to filibuster.
The current congress (111th) will end on January 3, 2011. Eliminate the filibuster on the first day of the 112th congress and then pass health care. Stop the obstructionism of the republicans. If the voters object, let them vote the Dems out of office in the 2012 elections.
That sounds good as long as we're in charge Jerry.
101; RE "That sounds good as long as we're in charge"
Now YOU are scaring ME. lol
That sounds like something the Puritans would have said when they got off the boat.
As in [The persecuted have become the PERSECUTORS]. lol.
It's kind of like sane gun control RZ. I'm not a gun person but I know how to use them. I've never shot anyone. You can trust me with a gun. You can't trust Dick Cheney.
Now do you understand? We're the good guys RZ.
Ya I understand all that. I was just trying to stir up the pot a little. LOL.
Balance my friend, balance. The way [Tao].
Post a Comment