Obama Tailspin

[Kulaf]

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-pu ... P%20%20%0A

In recent times, conversely, the Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of any apparent filibuster.
For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.

[Lurker]

That's from 2003.

You've shown in your last several posts that you don't understand the process. Forgive me if I'm not impressed by something you dug up in the last few minutes. I've been following this problem in the Senate for some time and know what's actually happening and which side is responsible for the current spike.

[Kulaf]

Yes it is from 2003 when the Republicans were in the majority and the Dems were doing the same thing. The "unpresidented level" of cloture motions during that time has now been supassed by the "unpresidented level" of cloture motions today.

Well we have now proven that both sides of the equations have been ramping up the level is partizanship. Yay?

[Kulaf]

I know.....we need to go back to where no side has more than 60 votes then all of the cloture motions will go away and the problem will be solved. Ohh wait....

[Lurker]

Wow. That certainly made a lot of sense.

[Kulaf]

Just showing the rediculousness of a position that states that an increase in the number of cloture motions somehow indicates governmental gridlock when I could just as easily argue the opposite. If no one party could pass a cloture vote then no one would put forth a motion for one.

Somehow this just smacks of "it's not our fault we aren't passing the legislation we have the votes to pass, it's all their fault because we had to delay a whole 3 days to file three different cloture motions."

[Lurker]

This seems to be another Kulaf argument without a point, like the tax one.

The Republicans are obstructing legislation and using the filibuster to require super-majorities for nearly every piece of legislation. That's a fact. Our country can't function under those conditions. The Senate was never meant to require super-majorities.

Quoting Ddrak again for emphasis.

Something needs to happen because with politics the way they are the legislature is simply ineffective at dealing with issues of any significance.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legisl ... /votes.htm

Take another walk down history Lurker. Look at the entires stating "On the passage of the bill." You'll find most of those votes enjoy bi-partisan support.

[Lurker]

That's genius, Embar! Ignore all the items that were successfully obstructed and only look at items that went to a final vote to prove that there's no obstruction. For your next trick, you can make homelessness vanish by only looking at people that own a home.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Lookt at the other votes too, I did. I see the same pattern. There is plenty of cross-over voting. I directed you to the bills because thats where the final vote is taken, its where the rubber hits the road after all the procedural stuff. But hey, take a gander at the rest of the items, the amendments are good to look at. You'll see members of both parties cross party lines on votes.

Could it be you're just pissed that the Republicans didn't cross over on healthcare?

[Lurker]

What you see is a block of 33-40 Republicans voting against nearly everything. I have no problem with that since they are the opposition party and I'd expect them to have a different agenda.

But again, my point is the Senate was not designed to require super majorities to pass legislation. Cloture votes which were at one time used to stop endless debate are now used to prevent debate from beginning in the first place. The institution is broken. The country is effectively paralyzed by a minority party that has every incentive to ensure the majority fails to enact key agenda items.

If you think that's just liberal hurt feelings about health reform, you'll have to figure out why Ddrak thinks the same thing.

[Kulaf]

Then why aren't we hearing about filibusters? Where are the hours of reading from the dictionary? Where is it?

Smoke, smoke and more smoke but not a fire anywhere.

[Embar Angylwrath]

What you see is a block of 33-40 Republicans voting against nearly everything. I have no problem with that since they are the opposition party and I'd expect them to have a different agenda.

But again, my point is the Senate was not designed to require super majorities to pass legislation. Cloture votes which were at one time used to stop endless debate are now used to prevent debate from beginning in the first place. The institution is broken. The country is effectively paralyzed by a minority party that has every incentive to ensure the majority fails to enact key agenda items.

If you think that's just liberal hurt feelings about health reform, you'll have to figure out why Ddrak thinks the same thing.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. You finally have the correct perspective I think.

You first started out by claiming Reps voted in lockstep against everything. That was proven wrong. Then you claimed that Reps voted in lockstep against ALMOST everything. That was proven wrong, too. Then you claimed that there are a block of 33-40 Reps that vote to block anything the Dems do. That's inaccurate, unless you take the lower end of the number at 33. Lets even call it 35. That gives the Dems all the Rep votes they need to move stuff through. But here's the most important part of your post...

incentive to ensure the majority fails to enact key agenda items

OF COURSE THEY DO!

The Reps have a fundamentally different philosophy that crashes up against the Dems "key" agenda items. They are philosophically opposed to them. Why do you expect Reps to vote with Dems on "key" Dem agenda items? Wouldn't you be railing against any Dem that voted for a "key" Republican agenda item? How would you react if a Dem voted for the elimination of corporate taxes? Moving education standards to the states? I could go on, but you're smart enough to get my point.

Expecting the Reps to vote on issues they oppose on philosophical grounds is crazy. And again, until Brown won the Mass seat, the Dems didn't need one single solitary vote to advance "key agenda items". Maybe your outrage is better placed at the feet of the Dem party for not enacting "key agenda items" when they had the opportunity to do so. If you can't gat all Dems to support a Dem "key agenda item", why in the world would expect a Rep to?

[Lurker]

Then why aren't we hearing about filibusters? Where are the hours of reading from the dictionary? Where is it?

Smoke, smoke and more smoke but not a fire anywhere.

You do not understand how the process works. This isn't Mr. Smith goes to Washington.

Modern filibusters are used to prevent debate as often as they are to prevent voting through endless debate, and neither requires any dialog on the part of the minority party. All it requires is one member of the minority to remain in the chamber while the majority party must keep at least 50 members in the chamber to prevent quorum calls while they try to get the 60 votes to invoke cloture. It requires next to no effort on the part of the minority.

As for smoke, smoke blah blah blah... when is the last time you saw a news article about the Senate that didn't include the line "60 votes required for passage" or some similar nonsense. They don't use the word filibuster because in the last decade it's become a matter of rote that the Senate doesn't function on majority rule.

====

Embar,
Repeating...

But again, my point is the Senate was not designed to require super majorities to pass legislation. Cloture votes which were at one time used to stop endless debate are now used to prevent debate from beginning in the first place. The institution is broken. The country is effectively paralyzed by a minority party that has every incentive to ensure the majority fails to enact key agenda items.

If you think that's just liberal hurt feelings about health reform, you'll have to figure out why Ddrak thinks the same thing.

[Embar Angylwrath]

incentive to ensure the majority fails to enact key DEMOCRAT agenda items

Fixed it for you.

As Kulaf pointed out, there wasn't a Dem cry for reform on this when Dems controlled the Congress. Anyone asking for it now, especially leftist Dems, can only be viewed as, well, insincere whimpering pussbags that don't like it when they have to play by the rules that they helped create.

And you keep dodging the point...

Dems didn't need a single solitary Rep vote to pass "key agenda items". Dems had all the votes they needed. And that's what counts, right?

[Lurker]

That was a very mature post. I can see that you are discussing this in good faith.

====

To any adults still reading...

The Senate was not designed to require super majorities. The abuse of cloture votes is a recent phenomenon and it's paralyzing the ability of our government to respond to crises. (For example, see the two pieces of legislation that Embar mentions in his first post, that he finds critically important to the financial health of the country, and that was defeated in the Senate by a minority number of votes.)

[Embar Angylwrath]

Nice dodge...

Again.

[Lurker]

What exactly do you think I'm dodging? We've already discussed your "Dems didn't need a single Republican vote" statement multiple times in the last week or so. So what?

[Lurker]

I said you had no credibility with these attack diaries the other day and here's why...

You listed two pieces of legislation that you think are critically important to the health of the country. That legislation was proposed by Obama, passed the House, and died in the Senate when it failed to overcome a filibuster. It was defeated by a minority number of votes when every single Republican and a few Democrats voted against cloture.

Your response to those facts is to attack the people that supported the legislation you claim you wanted, and to defend the relatively recent bastardization of the Senate rules that allowed a minority of votes to defeat it.

That makes absolutely no sense unless you just aren't being honest. The only way that makes sense is if you care more about your side "winning" and Obama losing than you do about the fate of legislation you claim to support or the consequences to the country. Judging by your latest posts I think that's probably close to the truth.

[Kulaf]

I find it telling that the history of this board goes back to 2004 and only since 2009 and the Dems controlling both houses and the White House has Lurker seemed to care about Senate rules reform.

Where was the outrage when Republicans controlled Congress?