Save the Filibuster

radjago

radjago

CAGiversary!
Feedback
67 (100%)
http://www.savethefilibuster.org

Has anyone seen these commercials running? They have them available for view on the site. They're sponsored by a group called People for the American Way Foundation, a patriotic-sounding liberal advocacy group.

It seems to me that the average TV viewer wouldn't be that interested in saving the filibuster. And even if they were, I'm sure their senator will all but ignore the form letters being sent from this site's petition and go back to their special interest groups for their voting interests.

Here is Factcheck.org's analysis of the ad.
 
[quote name='radjago']And even if they were, I'm sure their senator will all but ignore the form letters being sent from this site's petition and go back to their special interest groups for their voting interests.[/QUOTE]
Why would they want to lose one of the weapons they have at their disposal?

If enough of the letters are sent, they'll get noticed. Period. Even online petitions have accomplished things, although that's rarer than a sealed copy of Harvest Moon 64. ;)
 
I haven't seen any ads by that, I find it funny that they suggest that a filibuster is the way to block nominee's. A nomination only need advise and consent from the senate. It does not need a 60% approval.
 
Correct.
The only 'constitution changing' is that desired by the Democrats to raise the vote to 60%. not to mention, I believe I've heard that filibustering is only 'allowed' in certain scenarios--advise/consent of judicial nominees is *not* one of them.
Plus, this is the wussy chickensh*t filibustering, where they say 'We're not voting' and walk out. If you're going to filibuster, *do it*. Stand up there for 20 hours reading recipes or whatever.
Put them to a vote. If you're convincing in your arguments against them, people will vote against them. Why are they so afraid of a vote. More tyranny from the minority.

I love Factcheck.org

The two major filibusters that are historically known are Strom Thurmond's anti-civil rights bill; and one from ex-Klan member Byrd. Yet "It is one of the ironies of US politics that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which lobbied so long for the 1964 civil rights bill, is currently lobbying to save the filibuster."
 
[quote name='dtcarson']The two major filibusters that are historically known are Strom Thurmond's anti-civil rights bill; and one from ex-Klan member Byrd. Yet "It is one of the ironies of US politics that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which lobbied so long for the 1964 civil rights bill, is currently lobbying to save the filibuster."[/QUOTE]

IIRC, during a filibuster Strom took out a phone book and read it cover to cover, although it may be exaggerated.
 
Nothing like allowing the government to waste even more taxpayer time. It would be one thing if they were required to talk about the topic at hand, but when politicians start to read a phone book that is too much.
 
Don't worry - the filibuster will be back. The Republicans will be sure to vote it back into existance whenever they're in danger of losing power. Then the Democrats will push to get it removed and the Republicans will be the ones trying to block it.
 
I hope the Republicans go through with the nuclear option.

If Frist succeeds, Democrats have made clear they will retaliate, all but shutting down the legislative process and stifling Bush’s second-term goals.

Many of the procedural things in the Senate are done through “unanimous consent,” the understood agreement of all 100 senators, such as allowing committees to meet during the Senate session or bypassing the full reading of bills, amendments and proclamations. Without those agreements, a majority of Republicans would be forced to stay on the Senate floor for hours daily voting on every little issue to get business done.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7384708/

BTW - when the democrats get back into power, as will happen since society always shifts, payback will be a bitch.
 
The site is very misleading, implying that the filibuster is part of our system of checks and balances and that the Founding Fathers somehow envisioned it. The Constitution says the Senate sets its own rules of doing business, so changing those rules has nothing to do with changing the Constitution. I'm not sure which way I'd vote on this issue, however.
 
The Republicans are conveniently forgetting that they kept 60 Clinton nominees from even getting a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And they are having a fit over 10 Bush nominees?

I think the moderate Republicans will end up torpedoing this anyway, because they are smart enough to realize that this would come back to bite them in the ass big time if they change it.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']The Republicans are conveniently forgetting that they kept 60 Clinton nominees from even getting a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And they are having a fit over 10 Bush nominees?

I think the moderate Republicans will end up torpedoing this anyway, because they are smart enough to realize that this would come back to bite them in the ass big time if they change it.[/QUOTE]

Wait a minute! You're saying that there are still moderate Republicans in Congress?!?

I keed, I keed...
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']The Republicans are conveniently forgetting that they kept 60 Clinton nominees from even getting a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And they are having a fit over 10 Bush nominees?

I think the moderate Republicans will end up torpedoing this anyway, because they are smart enough to realize that this would come back to bite them in the ass big time if they change it.[/QUOTE]

You have to understand the current Republican mindset. They are power-hungry and desire total and absolute control of the U.S. As long as our elections are controlled by Republican donors, they will continue to increase their stranglehold on our country.
 
Santorum: Frist will go nuclear

Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.), the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, has reassured conservative activist leaders that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is committed to triggering the “nuclear option,” stripping Democrats of the power to filibuster judicial nominees.

Santorum met the leaders Tuesday to dispel growing anxiety among conservatives that Frist was wavering over what some Republicans call the “constitutional” or “Byrd” option — a procedural tactic that would disallow judicial filibusters by a ruling of the Senate chair and a ratifying majority vote.

Conservative alarm surged when the Republican leadership canceled a briefing of Senate staff and activists by Martin Gold, a former Frist aide and master of Senate parliamentary procedure who is advising Republicans on the issue. The cancellation of the special meeting, which was scheduled for the Easter recess, left some with the impression that Frist might be backing away in the face of Democrats’ threat to retaliate by shutting down the Senate.

Business interests on K Street are urging Frist to delay the tactic because it could imperil their legislative agenda, as The Hill reported this week.......

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/040705/santorum.html
 
[quote name='coffman']You have to understand the current Republican mindset. They are power-hungry and desire total and absolute control of the U.S. As long as our elections are controlled by Republican donors, they will continue to increase their stranglehold on our country.[/QUOTE]

Elections are controlled by republican donors ? Or do you mean campaigns ?

Obviously you've never heard of the man that broke the bank of England.

And obviouly, Democrats don't really care about power like those dirty Republicans, they just want to make the world better for the children...
 
[quote name='bmulligan']And obviouly, Democrats don't really care about power like those dirty Republicans, they just want to make the world better for the children...[/QUOTE]

Everyone in DC wants power, the question is how do you go about getting it. The last time the Dems were in control of Congress (before the '92 mid-terms) I don't remember them changing the rules in regards to filibusters. I also don't remember them rewriting their own rules to keep a crook like DeLay as Speaker of the House. Nor were they gerrymandering districts every time the wind blows to shore up more seats for their party.

There's a difference between wanting power and using every backhanded tactic you can to hold onto it.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']
There's a difference between wanting power and using every backhanded tactic you can to hold onto it.[/QUOTE]

You mean like lying to look good for your constiuency, voting for the sake of image instead of content, introducing a draft bill and claiming bush wants to re-institute the draft, subverting the constitution for the sake of "fairness", barring third party candidates from appearing on ballots, slashing right-leaning tires on election day, scaring people into believing their social security-education-benefits-medicine-scholarships-etc. will be taken away, fraudulent voter registration drives, fleeing the state to block pending legislation, perpetrating personal attacks while clammoring for their cessation, claiming to stand with the president for political capital then attacking him on the same issue for the same reason, ....... this list COULD go on and on and on.

The point is that Republicans don't have a monopoly on "underhandedness". Implying that Democrats just "want power" and are only using legitimate means to obtain it is probably the most naive statement you have ever made. (and THAT's a real accomplishment, Mr.)
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You mean like lying to look good for your constiuency, voting for the sake of image instead of content, introducing a draft bill and claiming bush wants to re-institute the draft, subverting the constitution for the sake of "fairness", barring third party candidates from appearing on ballots, slashing right-leaning tires on election day, scaring people into believing their social security-education-benefits-medicine-scholarships-etc. will be taken away, fraudulent voter registration drives, fleeing the state to block pending legislation, perpetrating personal attacks while clammoring for their cessation, claiming to stand with the president for political capital then attacking him on the same issue for the same reason, ....... this list COULD go on and on and on.

The point is that Republicans don't have a monopoly on "underhandedness". Implying that Democrats just "want power" and are only using legitimate means to obtain it is probably the most naive statement you have ever made. (and THAT's a real accomplishment, Mr.)[/QUOTE]

The incidents you mention are the type of petty things that both parties do all the time. I never claimed the Dems were saints. What I meant was the latest power-grabbing tactics of the GOP are unprecedented. Have the Dems ever threatened to "go nuclear" to avoid filibusters on their nominations? And after Jim Wright (who was also crooked) stepped down form Speaker due to scandal, the GOP set up new rules to force a Speaker out if under indictment. Their stand against corruption only lasted until DeLay was facing possible indictments.

I never meant to imply that Democrats were above partisan shenanigans, but the Republicans are beyond the pale right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top