Posted on 01/05/2010 8:59:10 AM PST by opentalk
Edited on 01/05/2010 9:00:29 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
If anyone thinks that the conference report wasn’t written last August by Obama, Pelosi and Reid, I’ve got a bridge for sale.
Then why not get up and filibuster the old fashioned way.
Just get up and talk endlessly?
“Gaming the rules” for tactical political advantage is a bipartisan sport, for example Republicans made use of reconciliation to pass portions of the Bush tax cuts and engaged in various kinds of tactical moves to pass the Medicare Drug Benefit in the form they preferred.
And for that matter, the Democrats are adopting “ping-pong” tactics in response to Republican tactics (objections re: conference committee) intended to force a series of delaying procedural votes in the Senate once the conference reported out.
The US political system is intended to make fundamental change difficult, and the design has succeeded: there is no way that a Barack Obama - or even a Ronald Reagan - is able to parlay electoral success into policy changes nearly as radical as (for example) Margaret Thatcher was able to effect on the basis of a single victory in a general election.
Given that fact, it’s hardly surprising that both parties attempt to take advantage of the rules to effect is much changes they can while they’re in power.
Personally, I’d prefer to see the filibuster eliminated entirely, or at least reduced to 55 votes, because I take a pretty Darwinian view of how political progress occurs: every once in a while voters become sufficiently unhappy with the current political direction that they vote for relatively radical change, experiments are attempted, over time those portions of the experiment which succeed are retained, those that don’t work are modified or discarded. On this view, in rapidly changing world excessive political stability may be a net negative.
But in the meantime, there’s really little point in complaining about “partisan political maneuvering” as staple tactic of whatever party is in power at the moment.
This has got to be illegal. These A$$holes are taking away the representation of any person living in a state or district that elected a Republican. This cannot be constitutional.
They're on a roll now, aren't they... :0/
Pubbies can filibuster the conference report and blast ads (need to be professionally done) all over the web, TV, and radio they were excluded from the conference committee. If the MSM refuses to run the ads, then they show their stripes. Pressure can be applied to those Senators who expect re-election to stick with the filibuster (more than 1 would cause Harry to sweat). States should recall Democrat Senators for consultation when the filibuster starts (they could if the Senators weren’t elected by popular vote, I guess). Senators up for re-election the next 2 cycles need to have the fear of God put upon them. This is not a done deal. The State Attorney Generals should file their lawsuit ASAP (screw Ben Nelson).
It's a coup, pure and simple.
There MUST be some legal action the pubs can use to stop this.
I believe the rules have been changed to allow a super-majority (the critical 60 votes) to vote to shut down a filibuster and the dems have their 60 votes. The good old days when a lone Senator can use the filibuster to both slow the progress of bad legislation and to point a media spotlight on it are gone, unfortunately. This, I think, is a terrible thing. It was one of the key things about the Senate that set it apart and allowed even a lone Senator to have influence. Now it'a all about the parties and only the parties.
You said it much better then I could have...
I hope for the day when these scum are tried for treason. A crime which we desperately need to enforce on any member of congress or any administration when they violate the constitution.
How soon would he be ‘legal’ for voting, etc?
Imagine!
Scott Brown!
(If I pinged you before, please forgive me: I'm trying to get good coverage for this very hopeful--- and significant --- challenger.)
From Scott Brown’s campaign office:
"Scott is a conservative. In fact, he will be the most conservative Senator elected from MA since . . . Senator John F. Kennedy, who nowadays would be denounced by liberals as "a dangerous right-winger." JFK loved our country, and he knew that in a recession you don't raise taxes -- instead, you cut them. And as a man with chronic ailments, JFK had no desire to our health system into one resembling Bulgaria's.
"Scott Brown is committed to voting to repeal the health care monstrosity Reid and Pelosi are busy hatching. He's against the Cap-and-Tax legislation. He's in favor of reducing our taxes. And, unlike Obama, he's not afraid to use the phrase "war on terror."
"You may ask . . . What about Scott's opponent, one Martha Coakley? She's another one of those Massachusetts liberals (think: John Kerry) whose ambitions are as unlimited as her talents are nonexistent. As a member of the Massachusetts legal community, she specialized in ferocious prosecutions of people who were clearly innocent."
Because while you're talking, the opposition is voting. Technically, if you talk past the gavel, whomever is presiding may rule the speaker "out of order", subjecting them to removal from the Well by the Sergeant-at-Arms.
The GOP did everything it could to slow-down this process. But, with the super-majority that the Dems enjoy, there was absolutely no way to stop the inevitable process without at least one other Democrat or Independent joining the GOP filibuster attempt. Those are the Senate rules as they currently exist today.
The moment he is sworn in. This could be problematic, especially if it's a contestable, or even close race. Technically, until such a time that the Brown would present his certified election results on the Senate floor, the Senate is under no obligation to seat him.
If the election is contested, you wouldn't see Brown seated until his opponent will have exhausted all her available legal options - much like we saw in the Franken/Coleman fiasco last year.
I just made a one time contribution and my message was to stop these dirtbags in their tracks!
EVERYONE....donate to the conservative candidate. The ones who will have our interest. NOT the GOP who is always pimping Rinos...
And what would you suggest the Republican minority do to stop the run-away train the democrats are driving?
____________
Walk out, go home, refuse to come back.
Where’s Sarah?
Take the gloves OFF, Republicans!!! Get in front of CSPAN even if they won’t. Beat the door down, the time for decorum is about done, don’t you think???????
She’ll be twittering and blasting DemocRATs in the media (that doesn’t try to ignore her).
Ridicule the RATs. Just like Alinsky taught them.
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.