When the GOP rules, a filibuster means you stand, keep talking, don't pee, don't eat, don't dare...

[Faryn Balyncd]

....even lean a little against your desk. And maybe do it once every few years.

And when Democrats are in charge, Republicans get to have their way 365 days a year, routinely, with just the automatic implied threat of a filibuster.




What's wrong here?


(besides the fact that one Democratic state Senator from Texas has more balls than the entire Democratic national leadership)

[DURHAM D]

1. Spot on.

"one Democratic state Senator from Texas has more balls than the entire Democratic national leadership"

[BehindTheCurtain76]

11. SPOT On x1000

It's called rolling over and peeing on yourself. Maybe NSA is blackmailing Dems...we saw what happened to Spitzer...now no one needs to get Wellstoned unless they are totally defiant like Michael Hastings. They need to change the Senate Rules to make these aholes actually filibuster like this heroic woman.

[CrispyQ]

15. Wow, three thumbsup!

But yes, spot on!!

[Volaris]

16. I was just going to say, its about balls...

The Con's aggravate me to no end in this country, but I'll say this for them (at least at the Federal level): holy cow do they know how to get (usually) what they want.

By comparison, the Democratic Party has become the Party of Institutional Spinelessness. And that's not good for us at this point in history.

This woman has figured out that playing the same game, at the same level, on the same field, is the only way to even stand a chance. The idea that we are "better" than them, and should conduct ourselves TACTICALLY that way, is nuts. Yes, we have a political arena whos purpose it is, is to keep bloddy rebellion from breaking out in the streets...but INSIDE that arena, we should consider politics, policy, and public government the FIERCEST of bloodsports. I would go so far as to say that this was President Obama's most short-sighted mistake. I would have tried TWICE to reach out to the opposition leadership, and then I would have made them SCREAM for "compromise". When he took office, he had (basiclly) from the American electorate, a MANDATE to crush the fuckers that brought us the Iraq Occupation, and the Banksters who crashed the WORLDWIDE economy, as well as the governmental IDIOTS who enabled them, as fast and as hard as he could. If he had spent the second year of his first term stepping on thier throats, instead of giving them the political equalivant of CPR, we would'nt HAVE to run filibusters in order to protect a woman's right to basic healthcare.

Chris Hedges said that getting arrested for attending a peaceful protest is more time than he would care to donate to his government. For the chance to give Mitch McConnell a concussion with Uncle Teddy Roosevelt's Big Stick, I sure as HELL would re-consider agreeing with that statement.

[scorpiogirl]

2. Exactly!

I was thinking about how the dems never make them do anything to earn it. And of course today the repubs made it as difficult for her as possible and looked for every possible rule break. They aren't human, seriously.

edit: fixed a word

[dsc]

3. what is wrong is you apparently don't know the difference between the rules of the US and Texas

Senates. I don't like the rules of the US Senate but the rules are, for now, what they are. And you can conduct filibusters differently there than in the Texas Senate, whose rules are closer to what they should be than the US rules are.

[Romulus Quirinus]

4. Why do you suppose that is? nt

[DURHAM D]

5. The Republicans seem to be making it up as they go.

[dsc]

7. they way the GOP in Texas is enforcing the rules is a different matter

but that isn't what the OP was saying. The Texas rules are quite clear and I think for the most part valid. I am deeply skeptical of the filibuster and think even here it might well be counter productive. I tend to think the people should have to live with the bad choices they made at the ballot box and not be bailed out by the need for super majorities and the like. I will say in this case, the law should be thrown out by courts. But if some pro choice people who voted for these GOP legislators on other issues had to actually live the consequences of their vote, maybe they would be more careful the next time.

[Faryn Balyncd]

6. The rules in the US Senate are what they are because the Senate Democratic leadership caved to a GOP

...minority.

[dsc]

8. I agree with that

except it wasn't necessarily the leadership (as in the elected leadership) but some of the old guard long time Senators.

[msongs]

10. democratic leadership is weak in the senate and in the white house nt

[byeya]

17. The sad part is the majority of Americans support fiscal spending on needed infrastructure upgrades

and support the President's being able to fill his administration and vacant judgships; yet the Democratic leaders have rigged the rules so that these actions can be thwarted. There is no good reason for this to happen just like there is no good reason for Obama to to appoint Republicans to sensitive positions in his administration.

[DURHAM D]

9. What are they voting on? It is after midnight.

[NoPasaran]

13. David Dewhurst does not believe in legislatus interruptus

[blkmusclmachine]

12. Kabuki Theatre.

[Spirochete]

14. If Harry Reid would do us all a favor

and fucking die, maybe the next majority leader could force the republicans to do that too.

[Recursion]

19. How?

I keep seeing that asserted by DUers but nobody has come up with a concrete explanation of what a different Majority Leader would do differently to change the rules.

[Spirochete]

22. I don't know that a different one would either

that's why the "maybe". I should have said "hopefully". We'd likely get someone like Schumer or McCaskill, who would do the same thing, but possibly not.

[Recursion]

18. The Texas Senate has different rules than the US Senate

Maybe I'm not understanding your question? The Democrats used cloture motions when we were in the minority in the US Senate; in fact, the whole "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" thing has pretty much never been how a US Senate filibuster worked; Thurmond only had to do that because his own party leadership was on board with the civil rights act.

[Faryn Balyncd]

20. The US Senate rules are what they are because the Democratic leadership gave the GOP minority ...

... rules which allow the GOP to obstruct any bill it wants, 365 days a year, with simply the threat of filibuster.

And to do it without having to ever actually filibuster, and without haviong to be reported in the news as filibustering.

All they have to do is have the votes to prevent cloture of debate.

During the years when Senate rules led to actual filibusters, filibusters were relatively rare precisely because of the political costs associated with them. Only the current Senate rules & customs allow 40% of the Senate to block cloture of a potential filibuster, and, ever more importantly, allow that 40% to routinely do so without actually filibustering.

Yes, the U. S. Senate has different rules than the Texas Senate.

That's the whole point.

The current U. S. Senate rules, which allow Republicans the benefits of obstruction without the political costs they would pay under historical rules, remain in place because of a spineless and complicit Democratic Senate leadership.

[Skidmore]

21. Wonder how many here would consider those parameters to

be torture?