Obama meets with GOP to spur job growth
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 0 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 1 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 17 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 8 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
57 Comments
Login to comment
0
GJDailleult
Bipartisanship??? What alternative universe has he been living in, and what alternative USA does he think he is president of? Instead of looking for bipartisanship, he should (if he could) just hand over the keys and say "if you are so smart then you can drive the damn car!!!" Then just go and sit on a beach somewhere and watch the car crash from a safe distance.
0
Wolfpack
President Obama tried to ram his agenda through Congress while he had both a majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate - and he still failed. That's just plain feckless leadership!
He isn't serious about being bipartisan. He just wants to appear to be so. He lost just a single seat in the Senate and his most important legislative issue - health care - is dead. He refuses to compromise and negotiate with RINO's (Republicans in name only) like Senator Collins and Senator Snow. All he had to do over the past year is just give in a little to these Liberal Northeast Senators and he would have gotten just about anything he wanted. He just can't bring himself to moderate his Socialist tendencies.
President Obama could start by ceasing his unending backward looking blame shifting and get serious about leading. He wants to feed red-meat to his Liberal base and bash Republicans day after day and then wants to invite a few Republicans over to the White House expecting to charm them into buying into his ultra-Leftist agenda. The man is clearly out of touch.
0
adaydream
I believe Obama is trying to really get some work between the two parties. I hope both sides will start talking. < :-)
0
RomeoRamenII
Well, that makes one of you who believes that.
If the Obama administration were really serious, they would not have waited an entire year to make this overature. I say his administration because Obama clearly is not calling the shots about how his government is being run. He's got other priorities like flying around to world apologizing to other nations for the eeevil U.S., taking vacations, making tee-off times and shooting hoops.
0
Molenir
lol. Your name fits. You must be having a day dream to think this. Like Wolfpack said. They could easily get a bipartisan bill. Just give a few things to Collins or Snowe, and they'd have it. That of course won't happen though. Obama talks bipartisan, but he is clearly not.
0
lostrune2
One or two Republicans is not a bipartisan make.
0
Madverts
"Obama talks bipartisan, but he is clearly not"
A bit like you guys then.
Until you get rid of your stale two-party sort of democracy, partisan stupidity will continue on both sides.
0
Taka313
You would think Pres. Obama would have learned by now. The party of no has zero interest in working toward anything with him.
Unless he decides he wants to bomb Iran for no reason or cut taxes for the rich, the GOP will hinder him at all cost.
Taka
0
adaydream
The republicans don't want job growth. If they did they'd work with the democrats. This is the republicans effort to already start their 2012 election run. They have some twisted idea that if they stop everything they can steal the next election. To hell with the people's needs. < :-)
0
yabits
How about backing that up with some facts? What, specifically, did Senators Collins or Snowe offer in exchange for their support that President Obama and/or the Democratic leadership refused?
Or are you just making this scenario up in your head?
0
yabits
This has been proven. They have been far more obstructionist than anything they ever accused the Democrats of being. Their main objective is to stall as much as possible until the November election.
If President Obama is any kind of leader, he will see through this game and turn it against the Republicans. I suggest he put Bill Clinton on speed dial and use him the way Bill used Dick Morris.
0
yabits
What they most don't want is to admit that their policies utterly failed the nation -- just as they did in 1929.
0
Molenir
Yes, so obstructionist, that the Democrats couldn't pass anything. Oh wait, until very recently, the Dems had a super majority, they didn't need any Republicans, and they had no qualms about letting them know. Ah, but they still couldn't pass anything. Hmmm, not quite jibbing there. How are the Republicans obstructionist, when the other party isn't being blocked? If the Republicans are the party of No, then the Dems would have to be the party of 'My way or the Highway.' Actually, thinking about it, that is a much more accurate statement of the situation.
Dems only need 50 votes in the Senate to pass anything. 50. They need 1 Republican vote to stop filibusters. Thats not hard to accomplish. These Senators are political creatures. And as others have said, the New England RINOs, are more then willing to be reasonable. Hell, it probably wouldn't even take a cornhusker kickback to get one of them on board.
0
yabits
There are many ways to obstruct in the Senate, by using procedures. Come to know them well -- you'll be railing against the Democrats resorting to it the next time the Republicans take control.
As an example, look at the hold that Republican senator Chris Bond (MO) put on Obama's appointment of Martha Johnson to head the GSA. It took nine months to get her approved -- with a lopsided vote of 94-2 -- all because Bond wanted a pork barrel project for his home state.
Taking his cue, Republican senator Richard Shelby (AL) has now put a procedural hold on all of President Obama's outstanding appointments -- until Alabama gets a counter-terrorism center and a tanker contract.
These procedural holds were hardly ever used by the Democrats or Republicans prior to this latest Congress: That’s because, as a Congressional Research Service report on the practice says, the Senate used to be ruled by “traditions of comity, courtesy, reciprocity, and accommodation.” But that was then. Rules that used to be workable have become crippling now that one of the nation’s major political parties has descended into nihilism, seeing no harm — in fact, political dividends — in making the nation ungovernable.
If and when the Democrats ever resort to using these same tactics, people like you will scream as though they were first. Well, they aren't. But making people aware of the game that the Republicans are playing is not in the GOP's interest.
0
Molenir
Well thats not true. Don't know where you got your info, but do a bit more research on the subject. Procedural holds have long been used when a Senator from the appointees state has an objection.
0
yabits
Since no record is kept by the Senate on holds, the only way to determine how often they are used is when they are reported in the media.
What IS true is the fact that Republicans who wish to keep placing holds can stall everything that the Democrats want to do. That would be called "obstructionist" by a Republican administration faced with Democrats acting likewise.
This puts the lie to the previous question: "How are the Republicans obstructionist, when the other party isn't being blocked?"
0
Molenir
True, but you can go back a long time and find reference to this. I remember it happening back in the 80s. Most times they don't last long. The Senators usually do it because they have some questions they want answered first. That said, placing holds is no more obstructionist then when Dems did it under Bush. Claiming that its obstructionist now, is nonsense. Most of Obamas appointments aren't being held up. Hell, look at Napolitano for example. 2 Republican Senators, either of whom could have held her nomination, and didn't. Lots and lots of other examples as well. Pointing out a very, very few, is nonsensical. Go find out how many holds Democrat Senators have placed this term. I guarantee you, the number is not zero.
0
yabits
No, it isn't. You previously claimed that because the Democrats had 60 votes there was no way the Republicans could employ obstructionist tactics. The fact that Republican senators could apply holds on bills and appointments makes your statement completely false.
The number of Democrats doing it in the past certainly is not zero. But the most common usage by Democrats is when the Republicans renege on a promise or deal -- typical for them.
LOL! Yeah, as in "Can you give my state this pork barrel project? -- (or else)
0
Molenir
You're deliberately talking apples and oranges. Holding up appointments for one reason or another, is not obstructionist. Its been done forever. Fighting the Dem agenda in the Senate is likewise not obstructionist. Its doing what their constituents want. Hell, its doing what most of the Dems constituents want too. If the Dems want to pass legislation, its easy enough to do so. Just go back to work. Reach out to their Republican colleagues, find areas of common ground and compromise. They've done that for years. Back when Republicans had control, and before that when Dems had it. Claiming they can't pass anything because they don't have a supermajority anymore is nonsense. What they can't pass is the extremist legislation that hardly anyone supports.
0
Molenir
Sorry, neglected to respond to the other parts of your post, hence the follow up. That is part of what is involved, both for Dems and Republicans. We both know it. If a Senator can't get a particular bit of pork through the normal channels, they will occasionally use other means. Check out Byrd from W-Va for examples. Theres plenty of blame on this to go around, its not a R or a D thing, its an everybody thing.
Thats you're bias talking. The most common usage for Dems, is for the same reason as Republicans. Most usually, they have some concern, whether the background of the appointee, or something else. A good example of this is Patricia Smith, whose confirmation was held for nearly a year. Not because of partisan bickering, but rather because of concerns about supposed inaccuracies in her confirmation testimony about a New York City pilot program. This kind of stuff happens all the time. Dems and Reps do it. I grant you that when its a Dem in the White House, the President can appeal to party loyalty to push his people through, and vice versa. But don't kid yourself. Dems have held up people even in this Session, and Republicans did it under Bush. Its got nothing to do with reneging on deals. A thing that again people in both parties are guilty of. Try to see through your partisan blinkers to reality occasionally Yabits. Its not nearly as black and white as you seem to think.
0
Odogma
Obama is redefining 'Lame Duck.'
0
Odogma
Am I the only contributor here who wonders why articles such as this rarely have a follow-up?
Obama wants bipartisanship?
Here was the outcome to this (Feb 11th)
"Reid killed the bill after hearing complaints from members of his own caucus who argued that Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) had gone too far beyond the core goal of job creation in order to win Republican support."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32850.html
The Obama administration and the modern Democrat Party are a bunch of ideologues.
0
yabits
Give me one example of a Democrat who has put a blanket hold on ALL appointments (as Republican senator Shelby did) until he gets his pork.
I rest my case.
0
yabits
And the Republicans are better? (Not on your life.)
0
Molenir
lol, did you not check out Byrd? Try again. Seriously. Has he done that before, not sure. Not sure anyone has to be honest. But then, your ranting about how only Republicans use this, belies the fact that about 15 Dems put holds on a recent Obama nominee. Yes more then one Senator can, and frequently does put a hold on a nominee. Senators frequently have holds on multiple nominees. Its all part of the process. Not a Dem thing, not a Republican thing, but rather a Senate thing.
0
yabits
I will ask you for link/verification where Byrd or any Democratic senator has ever placed a blanket hold on ALL appointees of a president up for consideration.
Missing the point yet again, is that holds represent a way for a minority party to obstruct the bills and appointments of the majority party. You earlier asserted that because the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority that they should have been able to get anything they wanted through. This is false, and holds are just one way of demonstrating the falseness of your earlier claim -- regardless of party.
0
goodDonkey
Molenir said hilariously:
Oh that is priceless. The only thing he could have added was "unless the Democrats are doing it of course." I am quite sure he has such intentions. Above you are seeing the truest of true Molenir.
Simply hilarious! Keep up the good work Molenir!
Boxing isn't pugilistic; they have been doing it forever. The sun isn't hot; it's been up there forever.
0
yabits
goodDonkey:
I'm still trying to figure out how blocking all of Obama's appointments in order to get a pork project constitutes "fighting the Dem agenda." When a nominee finally gets approved with a lopsided vote 94-2, it would appear that it is not doing what constituents want.
Note also that Shelby lifted his blanket hold within about ten milliseconds after the media started to devote some attention to his brazen tactic. One wonders if that was what his constituents wanted.
This is the difficulty of trying to meet with the GOP. Few of them have any integrity at all.
0
Molenir
I believe if you read any of my above posts, you would have known better. Regardless of the topic, I am fair. If its ok for one group, its ok for another. It wasn't "obstructionist" when Dems were in the minority, nor is it "obstructionist" when Republicans are. Is that clear enough for you? If you want to talk Obstruction, talk to the Dems who can't get legislation passed. Who refuse to reach out and even discuss issues with their opposition. Do you believe their constituents want them to be "my way or the highway"? Or do you think maybe the American people want them to work together to solve things.
Yabits - Did you not read what I said. Byrd is the biggest porker period. I stated, that I didn't know if anyone had held up all appointments before. To be honest, it sounds rather unlikely.
Heres the thing though. You have this habit, of taking the actions of one person, or a small group, and then blaming the party they belong to for it. Senator Shelby may have stepped over the line. If what you said is true, it sounds that way. However, what I said is true. Its not a Dem thing, nor a Republican thing, its a Senate thing. Senators have lots of tricks to get the Pork they want. I say again, check out Byrd. Holding nominees to get something has happened lots of times in the past. Its not the usual reason for holding a nominee, but then until recently, Senators didn't even have to say who was putting a hold. People from both parties have used that trick, and many others to get their way. So trying to blame Republicans for being "obstructionist" over nominees is nonsense.
0
goodDonkey
yabits:
I am simply arguing the definition of obstruction. If you know me you'll know I take an honest approach and let the chips fall where they may. I would have labeled either attempts at "blocking" an appointment from reaching a full Senate vote or "blocking" legislation from being voted on by the full Senate by winning a cloture vote as being obstructionist. I gave no vested interest in the merits of such tactics. As far as I am concerned if the Democrats do it I find it acceptable and when the Republicans do it I find it repugnant.
I am partisan. So What! However I don't change definitions to suit some frivolous news comment.
Molenir said:
Another laughable comment. That would not be obstruction (capital letter or not); that would be ineffectiveness.
Of course Molenir has it completely backwards. It is obstruction when either party does it. He even used the words "Holding up;" a euphemism for blocking.
But what I found most humorous was the fact that he said it wasn't obstruction because they had been doing it forever or his latest "People from both parties have used that trick, and many others to get their way. So trying to blame Republicans for being "obstructionist" over nominees is nonsense." It is totally non sequitur. There is absolutely no relevance of how long the U.S. Senate has been using practices as to the definition of obstruction. Even if it is not obstruction, or blocking legislation and blocking appointments, it still would not be so, just because they have been doing it forever. The definition is what it is regardless of how long people do or don't do it. Furthermore, the definition doesn't change because both parties do it.
0
Molenir
Please note, that what I was referring to, was specifically the practice of 'holding' a nomination. A practice of the Senate. Not Senate Republicans, or Senate Democrats, but rather the Senate as a whole.
I suspect the issue here is one of semantics. You say obstruction, I obviously disagree. I say, if anyone is obstructing the process, it is the Democrats, who refuse to even attempt to be bipartisan. With 59 votes in the Senate, all they need is 1, and they are guaranteed a vote. Not going along with the Democrats plan, is not obstructionist. Its doing what their constituents want. Now if the Dems moderate, and offer a more reasonable plan, without question at least a few Republicans would be willing to listen, and most likely go along with them. Thats all they need to do. But until they're willing to reach out, then nothing will get done in congress. And considering the plans they've been putting out there lately, Health Care, Spendulus, Cap and Tax, I'm not sure thats a better alternative.
0
yabits
Of course, this has nothing to do with semantics. The vast majority of reasonable people can agree that "holding up" is synonymous with "obstructing." It's as simple as that.
Holds can be placed on bills as well as appointments. In the case of the GSA appointment -- held up for nine months by the Republican Senator from Missouri -- the final vote was 94-2. Anyone obstructing someone with that much inherent support is trying to stop the nation's business from being conducted effectively.
The sad thing about dealing with the GOP is that so many have no intellectual integrity whatsoever. When something as crystal clear as a 9-month obstruction of a vote on an overwhelmingly qualified and supportable candidate gets presented as "not going along with the Democrats plan" or "semantics," my case has been made. (Those 94 votes represent the vast majority of American "constituents" who wanted the candidate on the job much sooner than the nine months it took.)
0
Taka313
molenir,
OK, now you've ticked me off. Stop this. You are not going to tell me that you are so uninformed that you don't know that this republican Congress has used the filibuster more than ever in history. I know you're not that dumb. So, quit sitting here pretending you don't know that the republicans are an obstructionist machine. It's not fair to guys like sarge. He doesn't know any better and isn't able to figure this stuff out on his own so he just relies on people like you to do his thinking for him. When you purposefully obfuscate the discussion, you leave him without a single chance for reality.
Take some responsibility for your actions, molenir.
You know better on this subject.
Taka
0
Taka313
...and don't get me started on how the GOP has held up Pres. Obama's appointments. You don't call that obstructionism?!?!?
Like I said, I don't think you are so uninformed that you don't know the truth. So what you are doing here is shameful.
Taka
0
Molenir
Taka, I have to apologize for my previous post. I really was too harsh. Not sure why, but what you wrote really struck me the wrong way, and I lashed out in response. In reading what you wrote again though, you weren't really saying anything that extreme, and my response was beyond where it should have been. Sorry about that.
0
Odogma
The so-called Jobs Bill, aka Stimulus 2, aka Slush Fund 2, was killed by Harry Reid.
Harry Reid is a Republican?
0
yabits
Harry Reid is not a Republican, but Repubican-supporters are masters of putting out tidbits of data without any background in order to keep people misinformed.
0
Molenir
Come on Yabits, I've said this time and time again, at least try to be somewhat fair. If you turn the statement around its just as accurate. Dem supporters, yourself included, are the same way.
On another note, I was just reading about Indiana Senator Evan Bayh retiring. With his leaving, the Senate is now in play. The way I'm reading it, its quite possible for the Republicans to pick up 9 Seats in the Senate, and more then 40 in the house, meaning that Obama may very well be facing a hostile congress next year. This should be fun.
Getting back to the post that was pulled. I was a bit harsh in my criticism of Taka, I assume thats why it was pulled, however what I stated in it, was correct. I'll reiterate the salient points.
What Taka said above is quite simply incorrect. On several levels. First, its not a Republican congress. That implies that congress is currently controlled by Republicans, its not. Second, the fact is, that until recently Dems enjoyed a Super-majority in the Senate, meaning, they didn't need any help from Republicans to pass legislation. Again, meaning, that no filibusters by Republicans were possible without bi-partisan support. It is only now, with the addition of a 41st vote, that Republicans can now block legislation, and only then if all of them agree. Something that is definitely not certain. Now, with these facts in mind, the idea that this congress has filibustered more legislation then any other in history, is quite frankly ludicrous on its face. Even Yabits will agree with me there. Every congress before this one, particularly recently when Republicans were in control, had more legislation filibustered. Thus far, 1 nominee, and 1 bill have been blocked. In the 2006 session alone, Dems blocked far, far more then that. To say nothing of the nominees blocked in both 2000, and 2004. Again, Taka, your assertion was completely, and totally incorrect.
0
yabits
This very thread provides ample proof that those who are opposed to Republicans are most certainly not the same way. (I hesitate to call myself an out-and-out Dem supporter; but I know that Republicans after Eisenhower have been utterly disastrous for my nation.)
I provided plenty of examples and backup references to the claims of Republicans like Shelby and Bond putting holds on bills and appointments. The person I responded to made the claim that Reid "killed" the jobs bill without any explanation as to why. That is typical Republican disinformation.
Again, Shelby put a blanket hold on over 70 Obama nominees just because he wanted some pork for his state. He removed the hold as soon as the move started garnering some media attention. These creatures can't stand the light of day; their "principles" wither in the sunlight.
That is why President Obama's invitation to the Republican leadership to meet in the Blair House on Feb 25, under the watchful eye of television, is going to be very interesting.
0
Molenir
And my point is, that Dem supporters, yourself included, are the same way, in using tidbits of data, frequently taken out of context, or ignoring other relevant points, to spread disinformation that supports your position. Do I really need to point out posts even in this thread where inaccurate statements were made? How about Takas post where he made the nonsensical claim that Republicans in this congress have filibustered more time then ever in history?
The point I made is that while I'll agree with your premise, that Republicans use disinformation, I must insist that Dems and their supporters are just as guilty of using it. Perhaps more then even Republicans.
0
yabits
Taka was and is right. The 110th Congress (2006-2008) had to invoke cloture to defeat filibusters a record 139 times. That's a Democratic congress defeating Republican filibusters. The current Congress is on a pace to exceed that. Try and refute that fact.
The United States is fast becoming ungovernable, and it's the Republicans who are expending extra efforts to make it so.
0
Molenir
Yabits, you're referring to cloture votes, not filibusters. A cloture vote, does not a filibuster make. Honestly Yabits, I'm surprised at you. You should know this as well. A filibuster is counted when the opposition, note not Dems and Reps, but those opposing a bill, join together to continue debate, or when they announce they will do so, and that they have the votes to force it. It is not counted when a vote is held on closing it off. The Dems in general, occasionally joined by Republicans prevented a great deal of legislation from passing via this tactic. Essentially what you're saying is that only 139 times did McConnell have the votes to pass legislation. Now count up how many times he didn't. Turn that around. How many times have the Dems had the votes... How many times haven't they. The number of times they haven't, is the number of filibusters this year.
0
yabits
While the relationship of filibuster to cloture is not exactly 1:1, it's so close as to make any difference neglible. The main reason the ratio is not exact is because cloture is often invoked to forestall a filibuster.
Over past 40 years, filibuster has been employed nearly exclusively by the party in the minority.
Utterly bizarre logic. I never said or implied any such thing. The Democrats had to invoke cloture 139 times to defeat or forestall Republican filibustering. It's because McConnell didn't have the votes that the Republicans threatened filibuster.
0
Molenir
Er, Yabits... I think you're confused. Allow me to refer you to your previous post. I assumed your numbers were correct.
You stated, that from 2006 - 2008, when Republicans were in power, that cloture was invoked 139 times. Go back to your most recent statement. Which is it? This congress, or the last congress? If this congress, then obviously McConnell didn't have the votes. If last congress, then he did, and was the one invoking cloture.
Yes and no. This is true of course. But its not unusual for Senators from one side or another will support the filibuster, or threatened filibuster, in order to force changes in legislation.
This really is all nonsense though. You're talking cloture, Taka referenced filibusters, 2 totally different things. To put it simply, this congress has had only a very few filibusters, or threatened filibusters. Certainly because Dems had a supermajority, thus his statement that Republicans in this congress have filibustered more then any time in history, is complete nonsense. I'm not sure why you brought up cloture votes and attempted to compare it to other congresses. Certainly I have a hard time believing you can't tell the difference between the 2.
Don't know if you can find the numbers, but if you do some research, you'll find that from 2006-2008, Harry Reid threatened the filibuster numerous times. Stopping a great deal of legislation as well as quite a few appointments. This is an example of successful filibusters. Only now can Republicans filibuster. Which as I said from the first, means Takas comment was wrong, and getting back to your original point, that Dems are just as guilty as Reps of using nonsensical statements to push disinformation. Your defense of it, by pushing cloture in comparison, when I'm certain you know the difference, is further evidence of the very tactics you condemned.
0
yabits
Wrong. The 110th Congress, elected in 2006 and serving until the election of 2008, was Democratic controlled.
0
Molenir
Weren't we talking about the Senate? The Senate was in Republican hands until 2008, when Obama came to power. Until 2008, Harry Reid was Minority Leader Harry Reid. The Democrats did control the house, and have since 2006. You always seem so knowledgeable about congressional topics. I'm a bit surprised at you.
0
Odogma
This makes the pokenoses, the control freaks and the advocates of a Nanny State despair.
It makes the rest of us smile.
0
yabits
No. That is not correct. Following the election of 2006, the balance was 51-49 in favor of the Democrats. The 51 included 49 Democrats and two independents -- Sanders of Vermont and Lieberman of Conn., who both caucused with the Democrats.
Harry Reid has been the Senate Majority Leader since January of 2007 as a result of the 2006 elections. The 110th Congress -- Senate and House -- was Democratic controlled.
From where I stand, I am viewing a par-for-the-course relation of facts from my philosophical opponents.
0
yabits
If you actually believe that an ungovernable United States is good thing, you must be working for the enemies of the nation.
0
yabits
I hasten to add that because the Democrats took control of the Senate as a result of the 2006 elections, all heads of Senate committees were Democrats and Democrats controlled Senate procedure. This left the "initiative" to filibuster in the hands of the minority party and they used it, or threatened to use it, in record fashion.
0
Molenir
Ya know, I had completely forgotten that Dirty Harry became majority leader in 2006. I had also forgotten that Dems were in control of, not just the House, but of the Senate as well. Which means, when I blamed Republicans for Tarp, and some of the other boondoggles at the end of Bush's term, I misplaced the blame. Dems were the ones passing it, even if it was a so called Republican who signed it into law.
0
yabits
I believe the main theme of this thread has been the obtructive tactics used by the minority party -- via holds and filibustering -- to prevent a party elected by a wide majority from governing. Going back to Taka's claim, he was proven right in the record number of votes taken to forestall or end filibustering by the minority Republicans of the 110th Congress.
0
Molenir
Yabits, you're talking cloture, as opposed to filibusters. Back in the previous congress, in which Republicans were a minority party, yet had sufficient votes, that congress you could say used filibuster tactics. The previous 2 congresses, Dems did the same thing. However, this congress, which is what Taka was referring to, Republicans haven't used it because they didn't have the votes. Period. No Filibusters by Republicans. Cloture votes, sure. A Filibuster is not a cloture vote. Do you not get that? Or are you just trying to skew things to fit your wishes?
0
Taka313
molenir,
You're having to split hairs to defend the indefensible.
Put down the shovel man, the hole is only getting deeper.
Taka
0
yabits
You are as wrong about this as you were about which party controlled the 110th Congress.
Quoting from the cover story of the latest Time magazine, "Why Washington is Frozen,":
"Rhetorically, [Republicans] derided Washington as ineffective and conflict-ridden, and through their actions they guaranteed it. Their greatest weapon was the filibuster, which forced Democrats to muster 60 votes to get legislation through the Senate. Historically, filibustering had been rare...up to the late 1960s less than 10% of legislation had been filibustered."
"In the Clinton years, Senate Republicans began a kind of permanent filibuster...For a while, the remaining GOP moderates cried foul and joined with Democrats to break filibusters on things like campaign finance and voter registration... GOP conservatives publicly accused them of 'stabbing us in the back.'"
"All this, it turns out, was a mere warm-up for the Obama years...Early on, the White House managed to persuade three Republicans to break a filibuster of its stimulus plan. But one of those Republicans...Arlen Specter...[later] switched parties... And the fewer Republican moderates there were, the more dangerous it was for any of them to cut deals across the aisle."
"In 2009, Senate Republicans filibustered a stunning 80% of major legislation, even more than during the Clinton years. GOP leader Mitch McConnell led a filibuster of a deficit-reduction commission that he himself demanded."
And Molenir claims that Republicans have never used the filibuster under Obama. It just shows how divorced from basic reality a person has to be to support that awful party.
0
yabits
As reported in the NYT today: "Five Republican senators broke ranks with their party on Monday to advance a $15 billion job-creation measure put forward by Democrats, a rare bipartisan breakthrough after months in which Republicans had held together to a remarkable degree in an effort to thwart President Obama’s agenda."
"But after being repeatedly stymied by Republicans on a series of initiatives and nominations over the past months, Democrats were elated with the outcome and expressed gratitude to Republicans who sided with them in cutting off a potential filibuster."
Back to top