The House Democrats Sit-In

[SillyAmerican]

House Democrats seem to be foaming at the mouth over gun control in response to the attack in Orlando. Why is it that these same Democrats aren't concerned about the murders taking place in Chicago? Why is it that gun control is only brought up in response to an ISIS attack?

Frankly, Democrats and Republicans are both doing just enough to be able to point a finger at the other side and say "they're the problem." Which is yet another reason why people are so fed up with establishment politics. This is what we get when we send these people to represent us? Fuzzy is right, it's a result (and reflection) of the deep divide that exists within the country, and has to be worrisome for those who bother to pay attention.

[SillyAmerican]

House Democrats seem to be foaming at the mouth over gun control in response to the attack in Orlando. Why is it that these same Democrats aren't concerned about the murders taking place in Chicago? Why is it that gun control is only brought up in response to an ISIS attack?

This statement is patently nonsense. Democrats try to bring up gun control after every mass shooting. It's Republicans who take the "Gee, what are you gonna do? Stuff happens" approach whenever there's a mass shooting, except for when the shooter is a muslim. 

As for how this is different than Republicans abusing the filibuster or shutting down the government, that's easy. Republicans obstruct in order to prevent business from getting done, including even the most basic responsibilities assigned to congress (see refusing to even hold hearings on a SCOTUS nominee, refusing to pass a routine budget that doesn't include a poison pill "repeal Obamacare provision, etc.). This sit-in is being staged to try to get something done, not to obstruct. And since the official policy of congressional Republicans is to never get anything done, I'm not sure what vital business anyone thinks is being held up because of this. 

This, however, is not a filibuster (which, however undemocratic, is part of the rules that neither party has wanted to give up for one reason or another).  The House doesn't have filibusters. 

This is an anarchic display of misconduct by folks that didn't have the numbers to get what they wanted done, and who passed on what would have been a compromise that represented achievement. 

In this, the Democrats forfeited some of the moral high ground they could once claim.  One of the things that has disgusted me about the GOP over the last 7-8 years is their desire to sabotage Obama's proposals to ENSURE that they fail.  Obamacare is a prime example; it is actually a Republican-based plan dating back to what the GOP was advancing in the 1970s, and a plan that, with ongoing maintenance and tinkering, could succeed, but they want it to fail.  Democrats are not wrong to point that out.  Compromise and achievement would be to the credit of the GOP on Obamacare, and it would have been to the credit of the Democrats had they voted in the Cornyn Bill.  Someone has to go first.

The GOP has earned Democrats' enmity.  They would "deserve it" if after Trump is elected (if he wins) they filibustered and blocked every single appointment Trump made.  They could do it, and it might play in today's environment.  But America doesn't "deserve it".  A republican form of government allows elected representatives to use their best judgement in legislating, but they are supposed to use their best judgement on behalf of the nation they serve, first, and on behalf of the constituency they represent, second.  There was none of that in the Democrats' action yesterday, and the way they went about it dealt a blow to the perception of stability in our democracy that the American people could have done without.

Both sides are completely dug in, and there seems to no longer be any thought given to actually working things out in order to move things forward. The word "compromise" no longer represents a positive option, and the republic is suffering because of it. As you say, in the past, there was a recognition of our being one nation, where today the divide is seen as a chasm that simply cannot be crossed. It's sad, but that's where we're at.

[SillyAmerican]

Republicans want to allow people on terrorist watch lists to buy guns all because they are afraid of the NRA coming after them this fall. That's the embarrassing part and that's the part that Democrats should be taking advantage of.

Instead of pulling this stuff, they SHOULD be running ad after ad for every senator who voted against those bills calling them "soft on terrorism and soft on crime." That's what they are, after all. They don't care about limiting the sale of guns to criminals and terrorists all because Billy Bob in Alabama might be offended.

A couple of quick points.

(1) It very interesting that Chicago’s staggering rise in gun violence and killings gets no attention whatsoever by gun control advocates, yet an attack from an ISIS goon results not in a discussion of how best to fight radical Islam but in an attack on an American's gun rights. Should we impose reasonable gun controls on people, especially those on terrorist watch lists? Yes, we should. Should gun control be the main topic of discussion when looking at the murders in Orlando? No, it should not.

(2) The Second Amendment of our Constitution applies to every American, not just Billy Bob in Alabama.

[SillyAmerican]

House Democrats seem to be foaming at the mouth over gun control in response to the attack in Orlando. Why is it that these same Democrats aren't concerned about the murders taking place in Chicago? Why is it that gun control is only brought up in response to an ISIS attack?

This statement is patently nonsense. Democrats try to bring up gun control after every mass shooting. It's Republicans who take the "Gee, what are you gonna do? Stuff happens" approach whenever there's a mass shooting, except for when the shooter is a muslim.  

As for how this is different than Republicans abusing the filibuster or shutting down the government, that's easy. Republicans obstruct in order to prevent business from getting done, including even the most basic responsibilities assigned to congress (see refusing to even hold hearings on a SCOTUS nominee, refusing to pass a routine budget that doesn't include a poison pill "repeal Obamacare provision, etc.). This sit-in is being staged to try to get something done, not to obstruct. And since the official policy of congressional Republicans is to never get anything done, I'm not sure what vital business anyone thinks is being held up because of this.  

This, however, is not a filibuster (which, however undemocratic, is part of the rules that neither party has wanted to give up for one reason or another).  The House doesn't have filibusters.  

This is an anarchic display of misconduct by folks that didn't have the numbers to get what they wanted done, and who passed on what would have been a compromise that represented achievement.  

In this, the Democrats forfeited some of the moral high ground they could once claim.  One of the things that has disgusted me about the GOP over the last 7-8 years is their desire to sabotage Obama's proposals to ENSURE that they fail.  Obamacare is a prime example; it is actually a Republican-based plan dating back to what the GOP was advancing in the 1970s, and a plan that, with ongoing maintenance and tinkering, could succeed, but they want it to fail.  Democrats are not wrong to point that out.  Compromise and achievement would be to the credit of the GOP on Obamacare, and it would have been to the credit of the Democrats had they voted in the Cornyn Bill.  Someone has to go first.

The GOP has earned Democrats' enmity.  They would "deserve it" if after Trump is elected (if he wins) they filibustered and blocked every single appointment Trump made.  They could do it, and it might play in today's environment.  But America doesn't "deserve it".  A republican form of government allows elected representatives to use their best judgement in legislating, but they are supposed to use their best judgement on behalf of the nation they serve, first, and on behalf of the constituency they represent, second.  There was none of that in the Democrats' action yesterday, and the way they went about it dealt a blow to the perception of stability in our democracy that the American people could have done without.

Don't forget Dems obstructed bush on everything he tried to do after Medicare Part D was passed.Also dont forget that reid also refused to vote on any of the proposals the house voted on from 2010-2014.

Yes. The sad truth is that this isn't a Republican problem or a Democrat problem, it is an establishment problem. When people start demanding that their representatives serve to represent everyone, not just those of their party, maybe we'll begin to see the ability to move forward on some of these issues. Until then, the screaming and finger pointing will continue...