The House Democrats Sit-In

[Fuzzy Bear]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/house-democrats-hold-sit-gun-control-n597041

Is this going to help Trump?

I'm watching this, and it looks like the stuff of European Parliaments whose governing coalitions are about to collapse, or who are faced with grave economic crises.  We haven't seen this sort of thing on the Halls of Congress since the period leading up to the Civil War.

As someone who has provided far more votes for Democrats than Republicans in my lifetime, this is incredibly disconcerting.  These sights and sounds are NOT the sights and sounds of a stable democracy.  They are the sights and sounds of intractable factionalism, and it begs the question of how we came to this.

Does this issue, not just the gun issue, but the issue of the House Democrats actually mounting a sit-in, really play well in Peoria?  Is this something folks really want from their elected officials?  And does this impact the Presidential race?

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

How could the Republicans compromise?  They and their partner here, the NRA, have done their best convincing Republican voters that Second Amendment Rights are absolute.  How can you compromise on something that you've told people is absolute, especially when, since I don't believe these Republicans are lying, many of the House Members themselves likely believe the Second Amendment is absolute.

The compromise would have been to vote for the Cornyn Bill.