Obama was for the filibuster in 2005

Suddenly, Democrats are all upset with the filibuster now that Republicans are using it. At least some Democrats say it is time to end it. That is not quite what they were saying when Democrats were using the filibuster to stop President Bush's judicial appointments. At least one Senator, Barack Obama, was quite in favor of the filibuster in 2005 when it was used to stop nine of Bush's appointments, including Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown. In 2005 I contacted my then-Senator, Barack Obama, regarding the filibuster. I asked Senator Obama about his views of the filibuster, especially since it was used to block many civil rights laws, including anti-lynching laws. (I cannot reproduce my original message, since it was not an email. The only way to contact Senator Obama online was to go to his web site and fill in an online form that left no copy.)

I’ll bet he was howling about recess appointments too back then, but now he is seeing them as an attractive idea for some 177 “stalled” positions. The problem is he is nominating extremists who don’t pass the smell test. So recess them in and no one will ever notice. DBM sure won’t

"Suddenly, Democrats are all upset with the filibuster now that Republicans are using it. At least some Democrats say it is time to end it. That is not quite what they were saying when Democrats were using the filibuster to stop President Bush's judicial appointments. At least one Senator, Barack Obama, was quite in favor of the filibuster in 2005 "

SDOP (Standard Democrat Operating Procedure).

The correct thing to do is whatever benefits them for the present moment.

They see no inconsistency or hypocrisy in such behavior...except when practiced by their opponents.

Then their situational indignation makes it obvious just how shamelessly lacking in integrity they are... to anyone not as drunk as they are on their Ideology KoolAid

BO is for whatever BO thinks will help BO and BO only so changing his mind, flip flopping on everything and being unable to take a stand on anything except spending is pretty much expected.

The guy is a POS.

I think it's a good conservative principle to be pro-filibuster, even at times when it hurts, say, Republicans in the short run.

Because a filibuster means legislation can't happen unless a solid super-majority in the Senate is willing to move it forward; and whatever else it's "about," most legislation is about growing the power and scope of government.

On a slightly different note: The only constituency Obama has been aggressively and reliably faithful to, has been the abortion industry. I do believe that if the power to filibuster "went away" and Congress passed a Mega-Takeover Health-a-Palooza that contained every thing the more excitable DSA boys and girls ever dreamed of, omitting only abortion (e.g. through a serious thoroughgoing Stupak amendment), Obama would veto it.

I swear.

(OK, maybe not: but only if he knew he could get his beloved abortion funding in there anyway via regulatory jiggery-pokery, Sebelius/HHS, the Supreme Court, or Executive Order.)

So anyway, t'hell, indeed, with bipartisanship. I want filibuster, inaction, gridlock, stone-cold frozen failure until we can pull off an electoral Regime Change. At that point, we can start to talk about sensible horse-trading and effective governance.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.