The dems used a procedural method to block republican input/amendments. You can't have your cake and eat it too, if you want republican votes, let them participate.The change also upped the number of votes required to 2/3. If they had left it alone, it would have just needed a simple majority and might have passed.Weiner should be equally angry at the democratic leadership for adding that additional procedural burden, but for some reason I havent heard him complaining about that.I dislike all politicians lately. I am tired of the games and the lies.
I don't have a problem with politics being politics (it's better than mob rule). But I still hear the annoying voice of George Bush in my head saying, "Up or down vote!" Like it was just so simply that even a stupid Democrat should be able to figure it out. Of course that was politics and B.S. then and it's politics and B.S. now.The real question is whether or not we want 41 senators to be able to block everything that might pass through congress. If not, the answer to me seems rather simple: why not pass a bill today banning filibusters in, say, 2, 4, or 6 years. Who knows who will be in majority then?There's also a very good article in the current New Yorker about the current dysfunctional state of the senate.
I believe filibustering is supposed to be difficult, uncomfortable and inconvenient. The way to fix filibustering is to actually make them you know.. filibuster.They wouldn't use it so much if they had to live on the floor of the capitol every time it happened.
Very good point, indeed.
The reason why they, the democrats, used that procedure was to prevent inane amendments that would have allowed businesses to claim income in the US but be taxed outside of the US. The Republicans couched this with "we don't want to raise" taxes, as if you or I are multi-billion corporations.Should the Democrats used the procedure? Probably not, but at least their logic is sound.
Post a Comment