Let's discuss: Republicans' current willingness to filibuster, as a minority, vs. Democrats'

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

reluctance to use this tool when they were in the minority.

There were a lot of arguments about this here last year.

I. So are the Republicans right and tactically and strategically smart to use the filibuster, and were the Democrats wrong not to use it more?

II. Did both the Republicans AND Democrats make the right political choices with respect to the filibuster for their respective circumstances?

III. Did the Democrats make the right choice, and the Republicans make the wrong choice with respect to the filibuster, and should the Democrats make the Republicans pay in 08 for being obstructionist vis minimum wage etc.?

IV. Did both parties make the wrong choice vis the filibuster for their respective circumstances?

Discuss, and please show your work.

My personal feeling is I'm not sure about the political strategy but the use and nonuse of the filibuster over the last year or so reflects the mindset of the parties. Democrats' reluctance to use it reflects the status and mindset of the bullied, afraid of more political beatings if they showed resistance. Republicans' easy resort to this reflects the mindset of the bully that has still not accepted that they have been deposed from this role.

[HappyWeasel]

1. Would it just be easier to just start discussing the "Nuclear Option"?

I think that just bringing it up will be enough.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. It's my understanding

that the Nuclear Option was only relevant to nominations (judicial, et. al.)

[smoogatz]

2. Too much Dem triangulation, still.

Too many Dem Senators would rather make deals than make waves--most notably those from traditionally "red" states, and those who are deeply beholden to the same corporate interests that sponsor their Republican colleagues. That's why the Dems in the Senate were never able to function as a coherent, effective opposition (the Alito nomination to the Supremes stands out as an example here)--because they were simply unwilling to accept that as their role. The Republicans obviously relish the chance to frustrate the Democratic agenda, and don't fear being labeled "obstructionist," even though that's exactly what they are. We really have only a nominal majority in the Senate anyway, come voting time. Lieberman, Nelson and Landrieu are as likely to vote with the Republicans as they are with the Dems on key issues.

[theoldman]

3. There is a difference between then and now relative to which

party has the majority. When the Republicans were in power it was all the way from the house to the Presidency. We still have a Republican president and only slim majority in the senate. That is why a nuclear option was feasible before but not now. The bottom line is that the nuclear option was never a good idea.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

4. So are you saying both parties were right (Repubs to use it, Dems not to)?

[theoldman]

7. I said that it was feasible, I did not say it was right.

I do not think the nuclear option is right for either party to use.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

8. I'm not talking nuke option. I'm talking about the use of the filibuster itself.

[unblock]

5. except that the republicans have NOT been deposed from the roll of bully

sometimes bullies get their way, sometimes not; but bullies they remain.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Yes No No/Yes No

I. - the fascist bastards are playing hardball and getting results: we compromise over everything.

II. - the fascist bastards are playing hardball and getting results; we played roll over butt-up surrender monkey and, surprisingly, got raped.

III. - we forgot to call their bluff re our use of the filibuster. We won't call their bluff regardng their use of the filibuster, so they win again.

IV. - our idiotic party of dare to surrender dare to lose always makes the wrong choice.

Any questions?