Getting it Bakcwards on Purpose
One of the big stories today is how the Senate Republicans are attempting to stifle debate on one or more Iraq troop resolutions. Problem is, as Q and O points out, that’s exactly the opposite of what is happening.
Contrary to the implication of these “news” reports, the Democrats are attempting to end debate on a single resolution (and need 60 votes to do it) and force a vote on that single resolution without allowing others to be considered. By opposing cloture (which would stop debate), the Republicans are actually keeping debate open.
Huh…who would have thought that the MSM would spin a story around backwards like that? And to make Republicans look like the villains to boot?
Color me simply twitterpated.
I’m waiting kind of eagerly for the stories about how essential filibusters are to the very fabric of our democracy, kind of like I heard when Senate Democrats were filibustering all but a few of the President’s judicial nominations (on such grounds as one of them being Hispanic). I have the feeling I’ll be waiting a while.
Like maybe the next time the Democrats are in the minority.
No related posts.
Category: Oh, THAT liberal media.
You will hear the democrats talk about how essential the filibuster is when the republicans dust off their claims that the filibuster is undemocratic and should be abolished. Somehow all THAT talk seemed to just fade away. As for the democratic filibustering of "all but a few of the President’s judicial nominations," that's some strange wording. They approved more than 90% of the president's choices and had a higher approval percentage than the Republicans under Clinton. I'm a little unfamiliar with Republican math, but I would think that more than 90% would be more like "the vast majority." But , then again, turning a surplus into a defict is considered "deficit reduction," so obviously all that math I learned in college was wasted time. Well, I guess it's still useful for engineering and science, but not politics apparrently.
G.O.P. Senators Block Debate on Iraq Policy…
The vote left in doubt the fate of a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush?s troop buildup i…
Oh piffle, Tom. You know as well as I that the Democrats were the ones holding onto the filibuster for dear life even though plenty of folks, me included, warned them that it would be used against them. They had a chance to end Robert Byrd's favorite means of stalling a civil rights bill and they chose instead to hose a few judicial nominees.
Now the shoe is on the other foot and I can hear Harry Reid's on my front porch, 30 miles from his office. I have no regard at all for him on this. He practically begged for it.
As for that 90 percent thing…that's a garbage position as well. Before President Bush, no high court nominee was filibustered solely by the opposition party. Ever. Every Clinton nominee that made it out of committee got floor votes. Shame the Dems were afraid to let these nominees get to the floor where their positions and qualifications could be debated right out in the open.
Seems that fear of debate has struck them again.
Well, it's true that the republicans didn't use the filibuster. The reason is that they probably couldn't have sustained those filibusters. Instead, they used the "anonymous hold," preventing Clinton's nominees from even leaving the commitee. Somehow, it's a crime for 41 senators to block a nominee while going on the public record, but it's perfectly okay for a single senator to remain anonymous while blocking a nominee. I have no problem with either party using the filibuster, which is why I'm not complaining about what's going on now. If the dems want to speak out against the "surge", they can attach an amendment to the appropriations when it comes up. It will be hard to block that without defunding the war. I do think the anonymous hold is a tactic that needs to be addressed. And the democrats are wrong to allow its use to continue.