Get Yer Ass on the (Senate) Dance Floor: Attempts to Reform Filibuster

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) has released a 7-page memo detailing procedures to reform the filibuster as practiced in the Senate currently.

PDF here: http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2010/12/Senate Procedures Reform Memo.pdf

Simple tenets of the proposal:
1) Minority rules - currently, one Senator may introduce a filibuster procedure. Merkley raises the bar to 10, so you have a lot more Senators putting their skins on the line to introduce a filibuster. But 10 is still only 10% of the Senate, so still certainly this procedure remains, allowing a true *minority* to continue debate on legislation (as opposed to letting one Senator fuck everything up).
2) Mr. Smith goes back to Washington - filibusters are procedures to continue debate, not block legislation (as they are currently used). The classic film "Mr Smith Goes to Washinton" shows Jimmy Stewart (shudder), wild-eyed and crazy, pulling all-nighters and ranting and raving on the floor. Most Americans think that filibustering Senators must hold the floor, and that practice has long since been abandoned. Merkley's proposal makes this mandatory (to return the procedure back to one of continued debate). Senators must hold the floor for debate 24 hours a day for continued debate - at least, those *doing* the filibustering. Currently, the only way to end a filibuster is a cloture vote - 60 yes votes. That will remain under Merkley's proposal, with the additional point that failure of anyone to hold the floor for continued debate during a filibuster will end the procedure and the bill will move forward to a vote without the need for a cloture vote.
3) Bring your party to the party: A third means by which a filibuster might end is for a minority of Senators to be present for the filibuster discussion: he recommends:
- 5 for the first 24 hours
- 10 for the second
- 20 thereafter
...and these people need not take the floor at all, but they must simply be present (debate shouldn't be one person in the Senate chamber just going on and on and on, yes? that's not debate, that's a lecture)

So, that's a far cry from the "nuclear option" Republicans spoke of in 2004-2006 (eliminating the filibuster entirely from Senate procedure), and it put some restraint on a woefully overabused procedure, doesn't it?

I dig this bill. Any problems you have with it?
 
I like that they'd actually be required to continue debate during the filibuster. I remember learning in high school about senators who would bring books or newspapers to the podium and start reading them. They should at least have to put some effort into a filibuster, their jobs are easy enough as it is (during non-election) so why not make them actually work for that $1/4 million a year.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I like that they'd actually be required to continue debate during the filibuster. I remember learning in high school about senators who would bring books or newspapers to the podium and start reading them. They should at least have to put some effort into a filibuster, their jobs are easy enough as it is (during non-election) so why not make them actually work for that $1/4 million a year.[/QUOTE]

The legendary "read from the phonebook" filibusters? I recall those, too. I'm not sure that would disappear entirely, but at this point, reading the phonebook is an improvement over continuing debate in absentia.
 
LOLZ...I can't wait to see the first guy piss/shit themself. If politics is the new collosseum, LET'S BE ENTERTAINED!!! Yes, let's see how much those pubs and blue dogs want to be corporate whores. Let's see John McCain argue about keeping DADT and building that fence to keep his job. Let's see Mcconnell, Cantor, and all those fucks stand up there and defend the richest 1% til they lose control of their bladders and sphincters. At least that asshole Strom Thurmond had the balls to do it to keep this country an aparteid state.
 
Once McCain is senile enough they could just stick him up there and let him rant about those damn kids on his lawn.

But seriously, something needs to be done, if not this then something at least. The idea that one person can halt debate is ridiculous.
 
I do agree with Senator Obama when he said that the filibuster is an important process that protects a minority from the tyranny of the majority. However, as with many here, I agree that the process needs to be overhauled.

This proposal sounds pretty good, but I'd add two things into it.

First, I don't care much for the 24-hours-a-day thing. While it may be fun to watch, I don't want the guys in Washington trying to make decisions on little-to-no sleep. These guys have a hard enough time making good decisions in the first place. I'd support a 16-hour work day though.

Second, I like the idea that X amount of senators have to be present in the chamber for debate to continue - however, I'd like to add to that. I say that once debate ends, voting should take place immediately with those present. If this is about the debate being so important, then those not present for the debate should not be allowed to vote on the subject at hand.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Second, I like the idea that X amount of senators have to be present in the chamber for debate to continue - however, I'd like to add to that. I say that once debate ends, voting should take place immediately with those present. If this is about the debate being so important, then those not present for the debate should not be allowed to vote on the subject at hand.[/QUOTE]

That's counterintuitive, as it requires Senators to be present to vote immediately, meaning that they must be present during the prolonged debate, thereby keeping the debate going by contributing to the number of required Senators for continued debate.

Also, your proposal is ripe for abuse; prolong debate until sufficient numbers of the opposition are out of the room, then cease debate and immediately move to vote. This suggestion makes no sense.
 
[quote name='Clak']Once McCain is senile enough they could just stick him up there and let him rant about those damn kids on his lawn.

But seriously, something needs to be done, if not this then something at least. The idea that one person can halt debate is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

The Senate needs massive reform and busting the filibuster down a few notches is one way to go.

The Senate was already designed to let smaller states have a disproportionate amount of power, anyone who thinks its existence has anything to to the protect the freedom of smaller states is a delusional dirtbag.

Also, the filibuster isn't in the constitution (which goes to show how much cons really care about these things) letting the vice president cast the deciding vote on a simple majority vote is.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's counterintuitive, as it requires Senators to be present to vote immediately, meaning that they must be present during the prolonged debate, thereby keeping the debate going by contributing to the number of required Senators for continued debate.

Also, your proposal is ripe for abuse; prolong debate until sufficient numbers of the opposition are out of the room, then cease debate and immediately move to vote. This suggestion makes no sense.[/QUOTE]

Isn't the point of debate not only to allow both sides to air their differences, but for both sides to actually hear what the other side is saying?

It's counter-intuitive to the spirit of debate to only require one side to be present for the debate. "You guys can talk as along as you want - we have no interest in listening though. We're not going to change our minds, we'll just come back and vote when you give up."

What would you propose that would force those with an interest to actually stay involved with the process, instead of rushing into the building two minutes before the vote so that they can vote with their team?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Isn't the point of debate not only to allow both sides to air their differences, but for both sides to actually hear what the other side is saying?

It's counter-intuitive to the spirit of debate to only require one side to be present for the debate. "You guys can talk as along as you want - we have no interest in listening though. We're not going to change our minds, we'll just come back and vote when you give up."

What would you propose that would force those with an interest to actually stay involved with the process, instead of rushing into the building two minutes before the vote so that they can vote with their team?[/QUOTE]

I'd say the risk of not getting to the vote in time should be incentive enough.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Isn't the point of debate not only to allow both sides to air their differences, but for both sides to actually hear what the other side is saying?

It's counter-intuitive to the spirit of debate to only require one side to be present for the debate. "You guys can talk as along as you want - we have no interest in listening though. We're not going to change our minds, we'll just come back and vote when you give up."

What would you propose that would force those with an interest to actually stay involved with the process, instead of rushing into the building two minutes before the vote so that they can vote with their team?[/QUOTE]

What you're suggesting is a fallacy by pretending debate only happens in the Senate chamber. What you're suggesting is a fallacy by acting like those who don't sit through nonsensical debates, phonebook readings, and the like are not "involved with the process" (and, as a corollary, the fallacy that those sitting in the senate *are* involved in the process). What you're suggesting is a fallacy by insisting that filibusters are only used for the purpose of continued debate, when their record abuse since 2007 (we've had more filibusters from 2007-today than from 1919-1976) is that they're used to murder legislation by mandating a supermajority is used for a cloture vote to pass the bill, and that it's no longer used for further debate.

Think of the versus forum; think of how much you continue to stammer and blather to the point that everyone else wants to beat their skulls into the wall. You have been shown to be uninformed and unwilling to consider alternatives in damn near every thread in the vs forum, and often times people just walk away from debating you because they get exhausted at how thick you can be. Mandating someone be present for debate is a false substitute for actually being informed on the bill under fire.

You insisting they maintain a constant presence in the Senate chamber shows a woefully uninformed understanding of how the Senate works, and what the job roles of a Senator are.

Your unwillingness to recognize precisely how transparently ripe for abuse your recommended changes are is the greatest indicator that either you're the best troll ever, or simply a person whose intellect is inversely related to their zeal for political discourse. You are *that* afraid to admit you've made a HORRIBLE suggestion, one that would not just fail to improve the broken Senate rules we have now, but actually make things WORSE than they are - in effect, ruining the positive effects of this bill and then some? Really? You're that afraid to admit it. That's pretty embarrassing.

A minority wants to have a debate - that's the point of the filibuster. The way it is used now no further debate is had, and the American public is used to the idea that 60 votes are needed to pass *any* legislation in congress. Merkley's proposal allows the minority interest to put off voting for the purpose of debate - but doesn't require those who disagree with the need for further debate to be present. Mandating (indirectly by your proposal of an immediate vote) their presence continues the trend of giving the minority party in Congress all the power of Congress, and enhances the broken system, rather than repairs the broken system while still allowing for minority powers.

You want to have a debate? Go right ahead. I don't need to be subjected to your perpetual numbskullery any more than I already am. That's the point.
 
I didn't say my suggestion was perfect - just an idea. In fact, I asked for a better idea from you regarding how to keep senators vested. Instead, you reply with venomous attacks on me. Good job, as always, Myke.

[quote name='mykevermin']You insisting they maintain a constant presence in the Senate chamber shows a woefully uninformed understanding of how the Senate works, and what the job roles of a Senator are.[/QUOTE]

Isn't the act of "maintaining a constant presence in the Senate chamber" exactly what this bill is attempting to accomplish?

All I'm suggesting is that if "Team A" thinks it is so important that "Team B" actually sustain their debate, then "Team A" needs to have some irons in the fire as well. Just as you said:

Also, your proposal is ripe for abuse; prolong debate until sufficient numbers of the opposition are out of the room, then cease debate and immediately move to vote.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't this anti-filibuster bill be ripe for abuse as well? All you have to do is wait for significant numbers of the opposition to wear themselves out, then ram the bill through, crushing any minority that gets in the way. The idea that our Federal Government should make laws based on who can drink the most 5-Hour Energy is a little scary.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']we've had more filibusters from 2007-today than from 1919-1976[/QUOTE]

So just to be clear, a filibuster by todays standard is requiring 60 votes to get shit done right? If Minority Leader requires 60 votes to get cloture that's by definition a filibuster?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I didn't say my suggestion was perfect - just an idea. In fact, I asked for a better idea from you regarding how to keep senators vested. Instead, you reply with venomous attacks on me. Good job, as always, Myke.[/quote]

The problem isn't one of involvement or lack of involvement. Go read Merkley's PDF memo linked in the OP; he outlines that the problem is one of obstructionism, so the Senate can't get routine things done, like confirm judges or pass a budget.

But, hey, as long as no budget is passed, the deficit for this year will be zero, amirite?

Isn't the act of "maintaining a constant presence in the Senate chamber" exactly what this bill is attempting to accomplish?

All I'm suggesting is that if "Team A" thinks it is so important that "Team B" actually sustain their debate, then "Team A" needs to have some irons in the fire as well.
Click to expand...

For the minority party who has decided that further debate is needed - if 10 of 100 people decide more debate is necessary, it's an incorrect conclusion that the remaining 90 need more information and thus should be subjected to the same standards. I frankly don't think you understand what a filibuster is.

Wouldn't this anti-filibuster bill be ripe for abuse as well? All you have to do is wait for significant numbers of the opposition to wear themselves out, then ram the bill through, crushing any minority that gets in the way. The idea that our Federal Government should make laws based on who can drink the most 5-Hour Energy is a little scary.
Click to expand...

So, in your mind, voting on a bill and allowing a simple majority of 51 votes to decide the outcome of the bill is "abuse." There's a document called the Constitution that specifies that bills are passed in both houses of Congress with simple majorities. That's an important document, yes? One that, perhaps, we should follow?

[quote name='IRHari']So just to be clear, a filibuster by todays standard is requiring 60 votes to get shit done right? If Minority Leader requires 60 votes to get cloture that's by definition a filibuster?[/QUOTE]

A filibuster is just a hold on a bill - a cloture vote is a vote to end debate on a bill and put it up for vote. Cloture is currently 60 yes votes, though it was different in the past (as high as 70, I believe). So when every vote presented by Democrats in Congress faces a filibuster, it requires at some point a cloture vote in order to pass (even if the cloture vote is not the same thing as a vote in favor of the bill). So the filibuster as currently used ensures that all bills have to be indirectly approved via a 60-yes-vote cloture vote.
 
Look, Myke, I completely understand what you're saying - and mostly agree with it. However, I feel that this bill is putting all of the burden on the minority, while asking nothing of the majority. (Resisting the urge to take this beyond Congress and make a comment about creating laws forcing minority groups to jump through more hoops... crap, just did it.)

[quote name='mykevermin']So, in your mind, voting on a bill and allowing a simple majority of 51 votes to decide the outcome of the bill is "abuse." There's a document called the Constitution that specifies that bills are passed in both houses of Congress with simple majorities. That's an important document, yes? One that, perhaps, we should follow?[/QUOTE]

I'm all for passing bills by majority vote - with minority rights, of course.

I think the important thing, before we determine the best way to "fix" the filibuster is to determine what the purpose of the filibuster is intended to be?

I do hope I'm not speaking out of turn for you when I say that I think we can both agree that the filibuster should not be a way for one individual or a small group of individuals to hold up a bill for reasons unrelated to the bill. Once we establish that common ground, where do we take it from here? What is the intended purpose of the filibuster?

If the answer is anything with "debate", then, personally, I see no other way to require sustaining a filibuster that doesn't require participants from Team A and Team B to be present. If you don't have two opposing groups discussing something, then you don't have debate. You have one guy standing alone reading the phone book.

How about this: instead of requiring X amount of senators to remain on the floor 24 hours from the start of the filibuster, how about requiring a number of senators in favor of continuing the filibuster to be equal to or greater than one less than the number of senators remaining in favor of ending the filibuster?

So, basically, one guy can continue to hold the floor, forever. Unless three guys are there who want to end debate. If there are ten people there who want to continue debate, then you need 12 people who want to end the debate. This still gives the minority a minimum of 24 hours to plead their case while requiring only a simple majority (at most, 51) to vote to end the debate. If the bill is so controversial that voting really does fall on a 50/49 split, then it's probably worth while to debate it a little while longer anyway.
 
And to clarify on my recent suggestion - that would not include an "immediate vote" on the bill following the end of the filibuster.

[quote name='mykevermin']controversial bills don't give us 50/49 splits - politics does.[/QUOTE]

Politics give us controversial bills. :D
 
What if your (myke, Wyden's, & Bob's) reformed filibuster is used as it is now? That is, what if they don't give a fuck about debate and they are just trying to hurt someone politically? What if all they're interested is delaying to create the impression that nothing is getting done?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']And to clarify on my recent suggestion - that would not include an "immediate vote" on the bill following the end of the filibuster.[/quote]

Well, that's good.

Politics give us controversial bills. :D
Click to expand...

eeeeeeehhh. I figure you're saying that tongue planted in cheek, but issues like confirming judges and making sure 9/11 workers get aid they need aren't controversial, so the use of the filibuster to block them is shameful rather than procedure.

[quote name='IRHari']What if your (myke, Wyden's, & Bob's) reformed filibuster is used as it is now? That is, what if they don't give a fuck about debate and they are just trying to hurt someone politically? What if all they're interested is delaying to create the impression that nothing is getting done?[/QUOTE]

not my reform, I'm happy w/ Merkley's proposal. And I'm not sure what you're saying here about hurting someone politically. Please 'splain.
 
The filibuster as it is now is an excuse to stop he legislative branch from functioning - it's sick, and NEEDS to be reformed.

As it is used now, it is abuse of the system; a tool the minority uses to have MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE of power in the senate. If there's a 59/41 split dems and repubs, those 41 can get into lock-step and abuse the filibuster to prevent something the 59 support.

The US is a republic, not a democracy - I think it's a good thing that the minority is considered even when things aren't popular, but within the senate everyone should be representing their constituents - these pols should be representing the people, and the minority preventing progress the majority wants is a big fuck you to the entire idea of a representative government.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']The filibuster as it is now is an excuse to stop he legislative branch from functioning - it's sick, and NEEDS to be reformed.

As it is used now, it is abuse of the system; a tool the minority uses to have MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE of power in the senate. If there's a 59/41 split dems and repubs, those 41 can get into lock-step and abuse the filibuster to prevent something the 59 support.

The US is a republic, not a democracy - I think it's a good thing that the minority is considered even when things aren't popular, but within the senate everyone should be representing their constituents - these pols should be representing the people, and the minority preventing progress the majority wants is a big fuck you to the entire idea of a representative government.[/QUOTE]

They represent their people by stopping legislation that their constituents wouldn't want.
 
I actually dig that 41 people can hold up an oppressive piece of legislation in theory.

I'd dig it more if the Senate were returned to representation of the states (why would most states want to go to war?), and the House were restored to its proper role of representation of the citizenry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='IRHari']What if your (myke, Wyden's, & Bob's) reformed filibuster is used as it is now? That is, what if they don't give a fuck about debate and they are just trying to hurt someone politically? What if all they're interested is delaying to create the impression that nothing is getting done?[/QUOTE]

Then it's up to the voters who disagree with those methods to vote those people out of office.

I think that needs to go hand-in-hand with creating a method for the public to recall a politician elected for the Federal level.
 
By saying 'hurt someone politically' I'm referring to slowing the process down. By requiring 60 votes you need to give a lot more up to get those last votes, and the process slows down.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']I actually dig that 41 people can hold up an oppressive piece of legislation in theory.

I'd dig it more if the Senate were returned to representation of the states (why would most states want to go to war?), and the House were restored to its proper role of representation of the citizenry.[/QUOTE]

Have you studied American history? They never really represented the American people, and even James Madison realized this and regretted his role in creating this government after it got off of its feet.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Have you studied American history? They never really represented the American people, and even James Madison realized this and regretted his role in creating this government after it got off of its feet.[/QUOTE]
Source? Obviously, I didn't study American history. ;)

Actually, I'm very curious about this statement. Were there others that realized they screwed everyone except rich white landowners?
 
Those other people weren't really americans though.

edit- There was nothing to realize, they knew it from the start, some may have had regrets later, but they knew what they were doing.
 
[quote name='Clak']Those other people weren't really americans though.

edit- There was nothing to realize, they knew it from the start, some may have had regrets later, but they knew what they were doing.[/QUOTE]
I already told you I didn't study!!! :D

But I guess I'm talking more about the regret part of it. Mostly because I find it hard to believe that they regret any of it.
 
Jefferson did have mixed feelings on things like slavery. He was conflicted about saying that all men were created equal, when obviously most poeple didn't feel that way, and everyone was certainly not treated equally by the government. It wasn't until the late 1800s that black people were even considered citizens of the country.
 
[quote name='Clak']Jefferson did have mixed feelings on things like slavery. He was conflicted about saying that all men were created equal, when obviously most poeple didn't feel that way, and everyone was certainly not treated equally by the government. It wasn't until the late 1800s that black people were even considered citizens of the country.[/QUOTE]
AH...gotcha...I was missing context.
 
Interesting, but the op-ed writer really understates the social cost of having filibustering senators putting their asses on the line visually and verbally. The Merkeley bill makes them do it in a bloc. More to the point, can you imagine how much time they would have had to spend on the Senate floor in the 2010 session in order to accomplish the same thing they have this year? That's when the power of the bill is demonstrated.

I do think he's correct when he points out that the media will still champion their champions in response to the 'outcomes' of filibusters. But encouraging an emphasis on backdoor and committee deals in an era where the public tends to need that visual component (i.e., they don't read newspapers or blogs that cover committee dealings in depth) seems fine - but really underthought if he doesn't think it would change the outcome of the political process.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Source? Obviously, I didn't study American history. ;)

Actually, I'm very curious about this statement. Were there others that realized they screwed everyone except rich white landowners?[/QUOTE]


Not sure actually, I just remember Madison was the most vocal about it, in his own way at least. He was known in his later life to forge documents to change is position on certain stances. Off the top of my head I can't source where I cam across him actually stating publicly his criticisms of his work on the constitution and the way the country was going, however his actions during his Presidency spoke loudly enough. This info is from a book read a few years ago on Madison that I no longer have and can't source, so take my info or leave it.

BTW sorry for taking so long to answer, I was visiting my cousin and he has no internet so tonight was the first night I have had the internet in a while.
 
filibuster-spike1.png


Guess who was Minority Leader when those filibusters spiked? He's a shrewd politician, no doubt about that.

Also curious what people think of the actual filibuster reform proposal:

–End the filibuster on motions to proceed (since this amounts to unlimited debate on whether to allow debate at all).
–Make all filibusters on substantive measures “talking” or “Jimmy Stewart” filibusters; Senators much actually stand and hold the floor. (How it works now is senators essentially jutannounce their intention to block proceedings and then go grab a sandwich.)
–When cloture is secured on judicial and other nominees, post-cloture debate is limited to two hours instead of the present 30 (since nominations aren’t subject to the same amendments that bills and other measures are)
–Eliminate secret ‘holds’, requiring senators to attach their names to efforts to block nominees
–Force the majority to allow the minority to offer at least three germane amendments to any bill (rather than the majority ‘filling the tree’ to shut out the minority, a Harry Reid specialty).
Click to expand...
 
Thought this was relevant to the thread , although not necessarily in a good way , but I found it in my spam folder and before deleting thought I'd post it here just to see what everyone else thought.;)

Note my original copypasta of the email was kinda ugly and hard to read , spoilering it makes it easier to read (and takes up less room) but messes up the formating of it a bit. Oh well. Also removed all the contact links , just so that nobody gets the wrong idea , I ain't meaning to stir up trouble or nothing.

Reid Invents Filibuster Rule To Castrate GOP!​
Reid Pushing For A Vote This Week!​
ALERT: Dictator Harry Reid is pushing a new rule to give liberals carte blanche power to pass any bill they want - whether the American people like it or not!

It’s obvious Harry Reid didn’t get the message in November. Instead, he’s launching a colossal power grab that will make it impossible for the GOP to filibuster many cases like liberal Supreme Court nominations. Reid’s pushing to change the filibuster rules this week to a simple majority of 51 instead of the original two thirds. This rule change would also make it easier for Dems to ram legislation through the Senate.
The liberals must be plotting to drop some pretty big legislative bombs on the new Congress, or they wouldn’t be itching to gag the opposition. Hopefully, they don’t have an ObamaCare 2 up their sleeve. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said, “It would forever change the nature of the Senate and constitute a naked partisan power grab. Such a move would disrespect our bipartisan system and the will of the American people."


Reid Relentless Bullies GOP​
Harry Reid is a bully and Congress is his playground. Too bad it’s not lunch money he’s after. Whenever a Republican tries to accomplish something, Reid just grabs one of his gang members to harass the lawmaker until they go away. If that doesn’t work, he’ll manipulate the rules of Congress until he can figure out a way to destroy his opposition.
That’s no way for our elected officials to act. Our founding fathers fought against the tyranny of British rule to create a Democracy where our country is governed by its citizens; not a single person. Harry Reid clearly missed that history lesson. The founders of our country created Congressional rules to protect us from the abuse of power. Unfortunately, Reid’s pretty good at finding a way around the rules.
Reid: Republicans Can’t Have Input On Legislation​
Reid is using his power to block Republican contributions on all legislation. He’s “filling the tree” (stuffing legislation full of liberal amendments, which prevents Republicans from having any real input). Why would Republicans vote for something when they’ll be blocked from giving their two cents? The liberals keep calling the GOP the party of no. Well, someone needs to stand up and say NO to the liberal’s backhanded legislative grabs.


Reid: It’s My Way Or The Highway​
Blocking Republicans from participating in legislation or debates isn’t something new for Reid. It’s his tried and true way of making sure things go his way. Reid has a long history of cutting Republicans out of debates and thwarting conservative legislation. No Washington doesn’t seem to accomplish anything that helps our country. Reid loves using the process of cloture to swiftly end debates before they even have a chance to begin.
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said, “My Democratic counterpart in the Senate, Harry Reid, has played quarterback, setting records for the number of times he has blocked Republicans from having any input on bills, cut off our right to debate and bypassed the committee process in order to write bills behind closed doors.”
According to The Congressional Research Service (CRS), “[Reid] has done this nearly three times more times more, on average, than the previous six majorities. In fact, the current majority in its two Congresses in power has moved to end debate on measures a total of 29 times prior to any amendments even being voted on. The previous majority did this less than half as often—only 12 times in the preceding two Congresses.”
If Harry Reid has his way, all a piece of legislation will need to become law is a liberal rubber stamp. We’ve seen the consequences of the liberal rubber stamped ObamaCare. Enough is enough. We must stop Harry Reid before it’s too late.
THIS IS NOT A FIGHT WE CAN AFFORD TO LOSE​
1. Select Below To Tell Congress To Stop Dictator Harry Reid!

2. Send this Alert to EVERYONE you know and every like-minded friend on your personal email list who wants to stop the Reid and his manipulation of Senate rules! We need to get HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of faxes delivered to EACH AND EVERY Senator and Congressman. It’s time Harry Reid and Congress gets the message!
3. Keep calling your Senators today
4. CALL President Obama
5. Print this copy and pass it around where normal working class Americans gather who care about the future of our country. Gallup polling data reveals American’s opinion of Congress is the lowest in Gallup history! It’s time to kick Harry Reid to the curb and let Congress get back to work!
DO NOT BE SILENCED – MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!​
NOTE: We need TENS OF THOUSANDS of faxes and PHONE CALLS and EMAILS delivered TO ALL CONGRESSMEN RIGHT AWAY!
Your voice can be heard — we need your urgent help at AmeriPAC. DONATE AND FAX NOW. Get my new book Black & Blue as my gift to you and the country, and say - "I'm As Mad As Hell, And I'm Not Gonna Take This Anymore!"
Black & Blue:
How Obama And The Democrats Are Beating Up The Constitution
The compelling story of how the Obama Administration and progressive Democrats are warping and contradicting the Constitution to make it fit with their radical agenda.
The book covers Barack Obama's Chicago and Saul Alinsky days were he learned to "game the system" to bypass the rule of law. The book details how the progressive Democrats use groups like Acorn to gain power to force their socialism on the American people.

Defend America,
Alan M. Gottlieb
Chairman, AmeriPAC

If you prefer to send a check, please mail to:
American Political Action Committee (AmeriPAC)
PO Box 1682
Dept Code 1263-p-gao
Bellevue, WA 98009-1682
 
I think it's clear the author of the e-mail didn't even read the proposed filibuster changes. The GOP would still be able to filibuster wise Latinas or whatever the fuck they're angry at.

The other points about Harry Reid would be more believable if there was some, y'know, evidence.

Oh and casual book plug after getting you angry. Nice.
 
An interesting e-mail, thanks.

It's shameful that a nationally-recognized PAC has to blatantly lie ("a new rule to give liberals carte blanche power to pass any bill they want"; "a colossal power grab that will make it impossible for the GOP to filibuster many cases") to convey their message. If this were an e-mail with no origin (i.e., some kind of email with a "FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: YOU GOTTA READ THIS!!!!!" subject line), then I'd say that's life.

But for a PAC to lie so outright, so shamelessly - that's pathetic. I'm sure it's effective, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how they can sleep at night, as corrupt as they are.
 
[quote name='Clak']There's a reason it was in your spam folder, it should stay there.[/QUOTE]

Most of the AmeriPAC/GOP/other right wing whatever emails that get sent my way usually manage to make it to my inbox , this one for whatever reason did not. I don't know why I even get emails from them , since I'm a registered Democrat I never signed up with any of them (not that that means anything). Only guess is maybe because my father is a registered Republican.

But yes , under normal circumstances I wouldn't have even given that email a second look , but the title , combined with remembering this thread made me decide to give it a look. Sorry if I bothered you by bringing it up.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']An interesting e-mail, thanks.

It's shameful that a nationally-recognized PAC has to blatantly lie ("a new rule to give liberals carte blanche power to pass any bill they want"; "a colossal power grab that will make it impossible for the GOP to filibuster many cases") to convey their message. If this were an e-mail with no origin (i.e., some kind of email with a "FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: YOU GOTTA READ THIS!!!!!" subject line), then I'd say that's life.

But for a PAC to lie so outright, so shamelessly - that's pathetic. I'm sure it's effective, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how they can sleep at night, as corrupt as they are.[/QUOTE]
That's an easy one, when the ends always justify the means it's easy to sleep at night, as long as you got the outcome you wanted. What would keep them up at night is someone calling out their bullshit.
 
[quote name='Clak']:lol: You didn't bother anyone man, that's just me being snarky.[/QUOTE]

Guess my sarcasm/snark detector is off today then , usuually I would've been able to pick up on that.:)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But for a PAC to lie so outright, so shamelessly - that's pathetic. I'm sure it's effective, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how they can sleep at night, as corrupt as they are.[/QUOTE]

"The guilty don't feel guilty. They learn not to." -NOFX

And I bet it is effective. Why do so many people believe what they're told?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='pittpizza']And I bet it is effective. Why do so many people believe what they're told?[/QUOTE]

I believe the answer is affirmation. Research shows the group most likely to pay attention to car commercials are the people who just bought that very make/model. Similarly, internet research into what websites people who identify as either conservative or liberal go to (political websites, that is - not porn, where we're all bipartisan, I suppose) fall right in line with their views.

We consume what we think is safe to our worldviews, in short. So we're more likely to agree with something that is untrue that we agree with than something that is true that we do disagree with. We can be sure few of us will do the legwork to look into the accuracy of those statements anyway.

Is there anyone who believes the filibuster is fine as is? There's some chatter in this thread, but remarkably little disagreement. I'd like to hear from someone who does not want to see this reform go through, and their reasons why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top