GOP obstuctionism

[nlm]

let me start off by pointing out that I'm some what of a fan of obstructionism - it slows government down and stops them from doing a bunch of "stuff".

That said, I'm interested in where people think the unheard of levels of Republican obstructionism will lead. This session, they are on pace to mount 153 filibusters, the previous record is 58.

Does the strategy of not letting Congress get anything done while screaming about Congress not getting anything done pay off for them, or does it end up backfiring?

Minority whip Trent Lott stated, "The strategy of being obstructionist, can either work or fail ... and so far, it's working for us."

I tend to agree with Trent that to this point it has worked (at least in terms of the very short term) for the GOP from a political stand point. I have my doubts that it will continue to work from a political stand point, as people become more and more aware of why things are not happening in Congress. Though I am surprised the Dems haven't been screaming "obstructionism" louder and more often, it seems like they would have learned a lesson or two from the GOP when the situation was reversed.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

We have enough space in the southwestern deserts(plus more as the midwest goes desert when global warming gets really bad) to dump everyone who is a registered republican behind razor wire...

[MODU]

We have enough space in the southwestern deserts(plus more as the midwest goes desert when global warming gets really bad) to dump everyone who is a registered republican behind razor wire...

hahaha . . . I'll give you a matching number of Democrats in exchange for John Warner, and you've got a deal. 

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Matching number? No. I'm locking up the conservative/communitarian parts of the electorate.

[Person Man]

Fine. They can lose three more senate seats and 15 more house seats.

52-2-46 and 247-188 sound nice to me.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Republicans might as well be in control of Congress between the Democrat's caving for Bush and the Republicans obstructing like the Democrats should have been.

[MasterJedi]

And what about all the Democratic obstructionism before the Dems regained Congress? Both parties will always do the same.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And what about all the Democratic obstructionism before the Dems regained Congress? Both parties will always do the same.

I must have missed that part.

[nlm]

And what about all the Democratic obstructionism before the Dems regained Congress? Both parties will always do the same.

The GOP is on pace to about triple the amount of filibusters ever mounted in a single session. So no, this is not the norm, not even close - no party ever taken obstructionism to this level before.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

And what about all the Democratic obstructionism before the Dems regained Congress? Both parties will always do the same.

I must have missed that part.

Really?  You don't remember the GOP furor over Democrats blocking judicial nominations?

[agcatter]

uh, that doesn't count because, uh,  they were Democrats. 

How's it feel Dems?  Cry me a freaking river.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And what about all the Democratic obstructionism before the Dems regained Congress? Both parties will always do the same.

I must have missed that part.

Really?  You don't remember the GOP furor over Democrats blocking judicial nominations?

You aren't fooling anyone. So the Democrats stopped 7 or so of Bush's hundreds of right-wing judges he appointed. Who cares? They still bent over for Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. The Democrats still haven't learned to stand up to Bush on a damn thing now that they're in the majority, and Bush has a 25% approval rating, so they certainly weren't standing up to him when they were in the minority and Bush's approval rating was higher. The Democrats are basically a fake party created by the Republican party for when the electorate gets sick of the other branch.

[J. J.]

You guys have to understand something.

The majority in the Senate (even without the nuclear option) has always had the ability to remove the filibuster.  The majority, R or D, has never had the will to do it.

[Democratic Hawk]

And what about all the Democratic obstructionism before the Dems regained Congress? Both parties will always do the same.

The GOP is on pace to about triple the amount of filibusters ever mounted in a single session. So no, this is not the norm, not even close - no party ever taken obstructionism to this level before.

All I can deduce from that is that despite the best efforts on the part of Democrats to get things done, Republicans seem to be determined to ensure that bog all gets accomplished

Dave

[Nym90]

You guys have to understand something.

The majority in the Senate (even without the nuclear option) has always had the ability to remove the filibuster.  The majority, R or D, has never had the will to do it.

Right, because the majority always knows that they will someday become the minority again, and that in the long run the country is better off with the filibuster than without it.

It's up to the majority party to make an issue out of the obstructionism in the next election.

[J. J.]

You guys have to understand something.

The majority in the Senate (even without the nuclear option) has always had the ability to remove the filibuster.  The majority, R or D, has never had the will to do it.

Right, because the majority always knows that they will someday become the minority again, and that in the long run the country is better off with the filibuster than without it.

It's up to the majority party to make an issue out of the obstructionism in the next election.

Nym, I'm far from sure that it is the best interest of the county, but it does protect the minority, whomever that happens to be. 

I'm also convinced that the American people (not to mention the politicians), want to be obstructionists. 

[Nym90]

You guys have to understand something.

The majority in the Senate (even without the nuclear option) has always had the ability to remove the filibuster.  The majority, R or D, has never had the will to do it.

Right, because the majority always knows that they will someday become the minority again, and that in the long run the country is better off with the filibuster than without it.

It's up to the majority party to make an issue out of the obstructionism in the next election.

Nym, I'm far from sure that it is the best interest of the county, but it does protect the minority, whomever that happens to be. 

I'm also convinced that the American people (not to mention the politicians), want to be obstructionists. 

Well I think in the long run it's good that there is a bias against change, and requiring 60 votes to pass anything controversial in the Senate is a good thing for that reason.

One can certainly argue where the line should be drawn as far as how much of a super-majority should be required.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The forces of good never use the fillibuster. It seems to have been used primarily to keep the black man down in the south, and to obstruct progressive agenda. It might as well be eliminated. Usually when the Senate decides to make some horrible decision, they have 60 Senators on board, anyways.

[J. J.]

You guys have to understand something.

The majority in the Senate (even without the nuclear option) has always had the ability to remove the filibuster.  The majority, R or D, has never had the will to do it.

Right, because the majority always knows that they will someday become the minority again, and that in the long run the country is better off with the filibuster than without it.

It's up to the majority party to make an issue out of the obstructionism in the next election.

Nym, I'm far from sure that it is the best interest of the county, but it does protect the minority, whomever that happens to be. 

I'm also convinced that the American people (not to mention the politicians), want to be obstructionists. 

Well I think in the long run it's good that there is a bias against change, and requiring 60 votes to pass anything controversial in the Senate is a good thing for that reason.

One can certainly argue where the line should be drawn as far as how much of a super-majority should be required.

I think that there is enough protection in the extended length terms.

[The Duke]

We offered to get rid of filibusters last term and you guys said no.  You made your bed, now you get to sleep in it.