Harry Reid told the Republican senators to put up or shut up.
Literally.
The rightwing fucktards have been immobilizing the Senate by threatening any piece of legislation that doesn't kiss President Nepotism's fake shitkickers. So Reid told them to commence with the goddam talking already and actually DO a filibuster, on the Levin/Reed Iraq withdrawal legislation, or shut the fuck up, sit the fuck down and go the fuck away to let some adults go about the business of running the country for a change.
You know, you can agree with the legislation or not; but the R's have been using the fake filibuster all year and never had to put up.
It's about time. Let's see if they can stand up and oppose it vocally, and face their constituents after being on record.
Yay Harry.
State Of The Union, 2025
12 hours ago
I have this image of a bunch of Republican senators pouting in the Senate chambers because they're being taken away from their real skill, shaking down people for money.
ReplyDeleteUmm... and you find absolutely no irony in the fact that Reid absolutely LOVED the filibuster when the Dems were in the minority? Defended it as a vital check on the majority, preventing a senator from "ramming it [legislation] through". Here's an impassioned defense of the filibuster from Reid when he was in the minority: http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=237812&
ReplyDeleteSeriously, go back a few years when the positions were reversed and see if Reid's posturing isn't nearly identical to Bill Frist's. Which is how the game is played, I s'pose, but don't try and sell Harry Reid as some sort of crusader for values or truth or anything.
Interestingly enough, when the Republicans were urged to do the same thing-- make the Dems actually talk to accomplish a filibuster-- those urging such a tactic were vilified by the left for ending important debate on a vital issue. So, I'm just saying that before you get all happy on your high moral horsey, remember that you seem surprisingly comfortable with supporting rules as long as they benefit your political perspective... and not so much when they don't.
Ware the double standard my frothing liberal friend. They can make you look awfully foolish sometimes.
I would also warn you to stay away from the strawman, Nick. "vilified by The Left"? Any examples? I certainly made no defense of the democrats using the tactic.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, the Republicans warned the Dems that should they TRY the filibuster, they would CHANGE THE RULES SO FILIBUSTERS WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. Not exactly the same thing Reid is doing, is it now?
The filibuster is a tactic - a time honored and traditional one, by the way- that was only being threatened by the Republicans for the past year. This allows them to block legislation without taking the heat for being obstructionist.
Reid isn't threatening to take the filibuster away; he's calling the Republicans on their threat. As I said, put up or shut up. I don't see Reid saying the filibuster is bad, or unfair, or should be repealed.
The difference here is that while they still may be able to block the legislation, and that's apart of the tactic, they will be on record as opposing the legislation and will have to defend their position to their constituents.
It's not an issue of ramming legislation through, but that the Republicans have blocked everything that's come down the pike, and tried to paint the Democrats as ineffective and obstructionist. It was past time for Reid and the rest of the democrats to stop sitting still for that kind of bullshit, and that's what I'm applauding.
As far as supporting rules when they benefit my political position, I haven't been inconsistent at all on this- I'd like you to point to where I have been- but when it comes to supporting the rules on a one sided basis, let's start talking about the Administration and the RNC, hmmh? As i've pointed out, Frist was the one who threatened the 'nuclear (sorry- nuculer) option and destroying the filibuster if the Dems had the temerity to use it. Not to mention the interesting interpretations of Executive Privilege, stare decisis and Constitutional Authority.
"you find absolutely no irony in the fact that Reid absolutely LOVED the filibuster when the Dems were in the minority?"
ReplyDeleteno. why don't you point to where Reid is trying to abolish the filibuster. Oh, you can't. While you are at it, why don't you fail to point to any news reports describing Republican's use of the filibuster this year. Oh, you can't do that either. Because our news media has decided that when the republicans do it, it isn't filibustering.
Most important, why don't you acknowledge the Republicans are using the filibuster as a way to avoid a vote on a wrong and sad war started by the leader of their party?
ReplyDeleteSnarky bunch, aren't you?
ReplyDeleteOk, to begin at the beginning... well, no, let's begin at the end, with Snag's comment, since it is the easiest of the bunch to answer.
Snag, I acknowledge that this is quite likely part of the reason they are threatening to use the filibuster. Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with my original comment. This is called a red herring and yours, inexplicably, attributes thinking and positions to me that you could not possibly have any basis for attributing to me. Next time, try to stay focused, and don't assume you know stuff about others that you clearly have no idea about.
Kathleen, thanks for asking the question and answering it for me. Saves all that tedious mucking about with the details of actually allowing anybody with a differing opinion to present anything that contradicts you. It's called an echo chamber, btw, and it is one of my pet peeves because it nearly always represents itself as deep, analytical thinking when it is, in fact, simple platitudes that are presented as incontrovertible truth despite any supporting evidence. Sorry for the sarcasm, but you started it.
For the record, you are correct that I can't point to where Reid tried to abolish filibusters. This is to his credit and to the shame of Bill Frist and others who felt it was a good idea. Please note, I never said Reid wanted to abolish the filibuster. But thanks for pointing out that I can't defend something I never said. Hmm... really having trouble turning off the sarcasm. I guess it's just my reaction to people without the faintest idea who I am or what I'm like feeling justified in being condescending to me.
On your other point, which is also a red herring, I refer you to the following: Boston Globe, June 20, 2007, A10; Knight Ridder Tribune News Service, June 18, 2007, p. 1; Houston Chronicle, June 6, 2007, p. 6; The New York Times, Feb. 17, 2007, p. A10; The Washington Post, June 27, 2007, p. B4. If indeed "our news media has decided that when the republicans do it, it isn't filibustering" an awful lot of premier national newspapers didn't get the memo. Alternatively, you owe me an apology.
Speaking of which, and bringing me to the first comment, I owe BP one. I actually don't have any examples of the "vilified by the left" thing. I believe I misremembered instances where various conservative pundits had urged the Republican controlled Senate to actually make the Democrats filibuster rather than just accepting their threat of a filibuster as sufficient deterrent to advancing legislation.
So, basically Reid is taking that advice now that the Dems are in control. Which is smart. Which is why Frist probably never did it-- sanctimonious prig was dumb as a box of rocks.
BP, I apologize for my misremembering and subsequent strawmanism.
I do, however, still find it deeply ironic that you guys seem to find the Republican threatening of a filibuster to be obstructionist, while when the Democrats did the same thing for several years it was just good tactics. Which it was, I guess, since the Republicans weren't bright enough to call them on it.
As to the inconsistent claim. Well, I admit I can't find any posts where you actually applaud threatened, or "fake" as you tag them, filibusters by the Dems, I also can't find any condemnations of them. Are you telling me that if Bill Frist had actually forced the Dems to hold an honest to goodness filibuster on the judicial nominations, for example, you wouldn't have been irate and railed against the unfairness of it?
I actually like what Reid is doing, honestly. I think anyone filibustering should actually have to talk-- even if it is only reading Harry Potter into the record. But I am not willing to give Reid any credit for his grand, Constitutional vision since it is clearly just a political tactic to him. Give him kudos for being smart enough to do it if you like, but don't try and sell him as some sort of hero given that he was perfectly happy threatening a filibuster for the last few years.
for someone who objects to red herrings, sarcasm and condescension, one would think Nick's comments wouldn't be so chock full of 'em.
ReplyDeleteWould you, Kathleen? How very, very deep you think.
ReplyDeleteWell, I actually don't mind sarcasm--pretty obvious-- and condescension is a useful tool for deflating pompous know-it-alls. What I do mind is people being condescending and sarcastic towards me based on assumptions of my opinions, viewpoints, and capabilities that are based on next to nothing.
If I am condescending and snarky towards BP, it is based on a fairly long association via our blogs and it was meant in good humor. Which I think (I certainly hope) BP understands and does not take personally. And he very effectively illustrated the errors in my post without getting condescending or particularly snarky in return.
You, on the other hand, know nothing of me but felt free to condescend to me based on the assumption that I was a right-wing ditto head, or perhaps a fairly bright six-year-old. You ask and answer silly-- and in one case factually inaccurate-- questions for me based on that erroneous and prejudicial judgment. Then, rather than apologize, or even acknowledge that, perhaps, you had misjudged me, you continue to be snarky and petty.
So, yeah, I was a little sarcastic and condescending towards you. In retrospect, I think my estimation of, and response to, you was dead on balls accurate (it's an industry term).
So, I've apologized for the bits I was wrong about and/or mischaracterized. Any chance you'll do likewise?
Hey BP-- you've got a flame war going!
Don't hassle K-unit, dude!
ReplyDeleteAnd BP, fuckin' A. I would like the Fuckin' Republiars to sit the fuck down. Just sit the fuck down!!!
Okay, kids, settle down.
ReplyDeletesheesh. I'm gone for one night and you guys trash the place.
My First Flame war!! (I think) dang. I wish I had a troll now.
Okay Nick, I will apologize for the drive by snarking from the others. Nick, remember when I first started dropping by your joint; it took a couple of slap-downs before I largely abandoned the snark and went for more substantive debate. Snag and fellows come from places where snark is pretty plentiful and frankly, given the harsh eliminationist rhetoric coming from rightward locales toward us lefties, I don't blame 'em too much. Sometimes snark is the only answer people like Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson and Bill O'Reilly deserv, let alone internet whackjobs such as Atlas Shrugs and Confederate Yankee.
Nick is actually not a knee jerk Republiar. However, He does have a bit of a knee jerk reaction to what we liberals use as verbal shorthand (sorry Nick; but you're as jumpy at straw men and conclusions as I am) I think it's because his family, who are by and large all friends of mine, are also by and large flaming mushy headed liberals like I am and he gets kind of gang-tackled at times.
But otherwise, he is basically thoughtful and admits when you catch him out, as he did above. Actually, I think he mostly holds liberal opinions (ask him about gay rights) but is loathe to admit it (sorry again Nick). The small government thing is a constant; but the difference is more where we define the boundary.
So; my joint, my rules, eh? I don't know. I'm not gonna rule out staples of my own discourse such as snark, sarcasm, or hyperbole. I'd be left with nothing to write.
So, I guess call people on 'em if you feel like it. But OTOH, when someone actually puts some effort into a response, I'd request that you throw a little respect into the answer, a little substantive response. As of now, everyone who stops by here are actually pretty good folks overall.
when the trolls show, however, feel free to unload both barrels.
Back to the point: I haven't objected to the R's use of the Filibuster or characteriuzed it as obstructionist (although when the roles were reversed, It was open season on calling the Democrats such). what I do find obstructionist is using the threat of one, over and over again, to refuse to vote on bills that have popular support to be such, as well as craven and cowardly. This IS what the Republicans (and Lieberman) have been doing in this session. In Reality, I LOVE the filibuster, there's a rich history of its use and at times, it can verge on the poetic.
Actually, Frist did the EXACT OPPOSITE of forcing the Democrats to use the filibuster; if he had, I would have been fine with it and you can accept that statement or not. But instead, he threatened to use preocedural tactics to remove the filibuster entirely, if the dems had the stones to actually TRY it. That's the congressional version of threatening to take your ball and go home if you don't get your way.
And as far as the news media, CNN actually had an earlier article, as well as broadcast I believe, that stated that the Dems were doing the filibustering. I believe THAT is what K was referring to. I'd find a cite, but it's late, I'm tired and working on three margaritas, so you'll have to take my word for it.
But overall, I still want to thank everyone for commenting. Remembering back to when I never got any comments, I got kind of excited to see a sizable comment queue. I believe that we can get along and discuss these things, snark and sarcasm included, in good faith, with just a little effort. Now if we can geet just a little feedback from Silent Mike, we'll be cooking.
As long as we keep Snag supplied with moose jokes.
Yes, please do not outlaw sarcasm. That would be senseless on this blog. And sad. And half assed.
ReplyDeleteI really believe Nick would love Snag's moose jokes if he heard enough of them.
There's a big difference between wanting to eliminate the filibuster because you don't want anyone even disagreeing with you and just wanting to use the filibuster.
BP, your "taking their ball and going home" line was exactly right.
You know, I've *never* had a flame war at my place! I want one!
I'll be right over to start one!
ReplyDeleteWhat are you gonna do? Rip on Robbie Robertson and Eric Clapton?
ReplyDeleteI may have to kill you.
I have no moose jokes. Sniff. I am sad.
ReplyDeleteThere have been some pretty good neocon jokes over at Andrew Sullivan, though:
Q: What do you get when you cross a neocon with a lemming?
A: Peace.
----
Q. How many neocons does it take to screw in a light bulb.
A. None. God won't let their light bulbs go out. And it's an impertinent question.
or
A. None. George Bush predicts the light bulb will be fully capable of changing itself within 3 months.
---------------
Just remember folks-- just because most of the current bunch of Republicans are lying, morons does not mean that all conservatives are also lying, morons. Nor does it mean that all liberals are honest and intelligent.
No one viewpoint/philosophy/person has all the answers. To presume otherwise is called fanaticism.
Glad I could help with the flame war, BP, and thanks for defense-- though I'm not sure my family would embrace the phrase "flaming mushy headed liberals". And yes, I am socially quite liberal. Fiscally, and to a lesser degree foreign relations-wise, I am pretty conservative.
I cast my first vote for Carter in 1980. since that election, I hav yet to see the Republicans display this vaunted 'fiscal conservatism' they supposedly possess in their genes.
ReplyDeleteI am also fiscally conservative (running a small business will do that); however, I believe that in fixing messes like the insurance industry, we will need to spend money; I also believe that money spent in preventing problems (Head Start is an excellent example) can be a wise investment.
Ignoring problems in favor of voodoo like supply side tax cuts is like maxing out your credit cards and hoping you win the lottery.
The reality is that for most of our lives, the Democrats have at least lived by PAYGO, whether you agree with the programs they push for or not, while the Republicans have preferred the credit option.
I will respect the Republicans who reverse this trend, although I will continue to argue with them; but I have yet to see them. I mean on a national scale; there are still a few like you around.
It's also worthwhile to keep in mind, Nick, that most of us Liberals out here are arguing against The Conservatives We Have Now, not some idealized past or future ones; It's been six years of being called traitors and threatened with death, and most of us believe that, as Driftglass said today-
ReplyDeleteThese. Fuckers. Have Got. To. Go.
NO realistic progress on any issues will be made until they have been roundly beaten and, hopefully, put in jail.
If I ever decide to become a Senator (read that as SELL THE HELL OUT), I would love to be involved in a filibuster. I could hold the vote up for hours on my own, just by stream of consciousness speaking. I don't know if anyone in the room would survive my barrage of string theory based stories about my childhood, pets, wang, women and song.
ReplyDeleteI would also take that time as a great time to expound on the virtues of the band Of Montreal and their artistic differences from Artic Monkeys and definively explain that while the Phillies may be the worst team so far in recorded baseball history, the Mets still and will always SUCK.
What I do mind is people being condescending and sarcastic towards me based on assumptions of my opinions, viewpoints, and capabilities that are based on next to nothing.
ReplyDeletedude, nothing in my comments fits anything you say.
I recommend you reread yours, however, and try to be objective (since you profess to be so into that). You were rude and obnoxious from the beginning. Life is too short for me to respond to that behavior with anything else than the way I did.
take this one, for example: Just remember folks-- ...
No one viewpoint/philosophy/person has all the answers.
why in the world would you feel like this statement was relevant, unless you are condescending to me/us and making unwarranted assumptions. Don't dish it if you can't take it, man.
and no I am not going to "apologize". "Boston Globe, June 20, 2007, p.3" is hilarious, but hardly disproves my point. I would speculate that you cut and pasted that from a freeper thread, but then we'll be forced to scroll through another 75-line screed that could be pithily summed up as "when you assume you make an ass of you and me".
I don't see anything snarky or sarcastic in my response to your comment. In fact, I deliberately refrained from that because I don't have any interest in picking a stupid fight with someone I've never met, even when that person calls me a "frothing liberal."
ReplyDeleteNor do I see anything of a red herring in it. You defended the Republican's filibuster and I told you one of the reasons I oppose it.
I don't like filibusters. I find them an antidemocratic procedural trick to thwart the will of the majority in a body I believe is intended to operate by majority rule.
That said, the filibuster exists (notwithstanding earlier Republican threats to do away with it when they were in control). All the fighting over procedure misses the real issues, such as, "Is Mr. X a good nominee for the Supreme Court?" or "Should black people have civil rights?" or "Is the war in Iraq going well?"
A filibuster in support of good policy might not be something I agree with, but a filibuster in support of bad policy is sure as hell not something anyone should hail.
Jeez. I really was going to leave it be, BP, but I mean... I can't just leave all that... stuff unanswered, can I? Well, I could. But I'm not going to.
ReplyDeleteKathleen. It is possible that I read "While you are at it, why don't you fail to point to any news reports describing Republican's use of the filibuster this year. Oh, you can't do that either" as a personal, sarcastic, condescending rip on me when you actually intended the emphasis to be on the media. But even if that is the case, it's really pretty hard to say that you weren't being condescending towards me as well.
I also wasn't rude or obnoxious to someone I have never interacted with before. Honestly, I don't think my comments rose to the level of being rude or obnoxious, though they were snarky and condescending because, yes, I was baiting BP. Who, as I've mentioned, I've known via my brother and the blogosphere for quite a while. There is an important distinction there. You knew nothing whatsoever about me other than my one comment, yet felt free to assume that it was okay to treat me in a condescending and disparaging manner.
Do you see my point?
And no, life is not so short to that you can't take time to make responses based on something other than extremely limited information.
I felt the viewpoint line was relevant because everyone else who is commenting seems terribly comfortable labeling all Repulicans with catchy little phrases like Republiars and Republitards. And since everyone but me has basically the same world view it's all a big yuck yuck fest. Which is dangerous. Because it makes it easy to ignore anything and everything coming from the opposing camp as tainted crap with no redeeming features or, conversely, to assume that everything that comes out of your camp is rosy and wonderful and the best thing since sliced bread.
That's why I thought it was relevant. If it came across as condescending, I apologize-- it was not meant that way. It was meant as a cautionary warning from outsider who sees you all having so much fun ripping on Bush and his doltish cronies that you tend to lump all conservatives and all conservative ideas into that same pot. Which is not right.
As to assumptions. What exactly is "I would speculate that you cut and pasted that from a freeper thread" if not an assumption?
And no, I did not cut and paste from a "freeper thread". I don't actually even know what that is. I used the newspaper database available to me here at UW-Parkside to search for articles regarding Republicans and filibusters. All of them refer to proposed legislation that the Republicans in the Senate were threatening to filibuster. And the articles refer to those efforts as filibusters. Exactly what you said wasn't happening, so yes, it does in fact disprove your point. And it's p. A10 in the Boston Globe-- I have no idea what's on p.3. Apparently something hilarious.
And having seen Snag's comment, I should respond to that as well.
I did not call you a frothing liberal, Snag. I called BP one-- jokingly. I did find your response a little snarky, but far less so than Kathleen's. I was probably more sarcastic than I needed to be in responding to you. I'm sorry-- I was feeling a bit grumpy yesterday.
That said, the war question was a red herring. The motivation for the threatened filibuster was not my point and was irrelevant to it. And I certainly never expressed any support for the Republican's efforts to obstruct Democrat legislation. My point was that Harry Reid is not a hero for making the Republicans honor their threat to filibuster.
That was it.
There. Another 75 line screed.
OK, new topic.
ReplyDeleteSo, how 'bout dem Brewers?
it's true that I didn't know you had a relationship with BP, and with that in mind your comments do have a different flavor. And it is rude of me to come to someone else's blog and start ripping on their friends.
ReplyDeleteother than that, I stand by everything else I said.
And I'll add that I, personally, have absolutely no interest in or sympathy for conservatives who cry foul when lumped with Bush and the GOP. (though I strongly dispute your assertion that happened in this post/thread) I say spend your time trying to clean up your own house, rather than to educate us frothing liberals about irony and heroics.
Well, thanks for the admission of over-reaction at any rate, Kathleen. And you really shouldn't stand by your contention that the news media won't call a filibuster a filibuster when it's done by Republicans, because it just isn't so.
ReplyDeleteI don't mind trying to clean up the Republicans' mess, but it really and truly isn't my house. Certainly not the Republicanism of George Bush. At the moment I'm a Ron Paul man, but once he fades I'll probably be a Barack Obama man.
And I wasn't so much trying to educate, though I know I'm longwinded and "lecturish" sometimes, as I was just tossing in a cautionary reminder. And I got a bit snarky and snide with BP in the process.
How ABOUT dem Brewers! I was concerned coming out of the break because the starting rotation was looking kinda shaky, but they have responded well so far. Sheets going on the DL is certainly a concern-- though not a surprise-- but Giallardo has been stellar so far and Cordero and Turnbow seem to have rediscovered their mojo. Suppan and Capuano both had strong outings last time out, so I really like our chances.
It would help if the thrice cursed Cubs would stop playing well, but as long as the Brewers play good, solid baseball-- and I see no reason why they shouldn't do precisely that-- they have an excellent chance of making the playoffs. The really exciting part is that all of the key parts are A) young and B) under contract for at least next year. In most cases, under contract for the next several years.
Go Brewers!
How on earth did I miss this??? I'm pulled away from my computer for a mere 36 hours and I missed BP's flame war! I'd have baked a cake or something had I known... :(
ReplyDeleteNever underestimate the power of a moose joke!!!
I'm glad we can all agree on the healing power of a good moose joke.
ReplyDelete