I have seen this argument elsewhere and I am not sure it makes sense
random thoughts Send a noteboard - 18/01/2010 05:28:57 PM
Is the problem that they are blocking the simple stuff or that they are blocking the major stuff? Your argument seems to confuse the two.
The filibuster is designed so that an ambitious agenda cannot be passed without a super majority. So if you have an aggressive agenda you need to either get a super majority at the ballot box or figure out how to win some support from the other party. The dems failed to do the first and seem to be offended that they are expected to do the second. The filibuster was designed to keep the majority party from blocking out the minority and to keep major changes to our government and society from being enacted without widespread support.
When the filibuster was being used to block Bush nominees for even minor offices the dems were fine with it but now that the table is turned we have Biden telling us the constitution has been turned on its head. Which I find ironic considering the fact that the constitution was designed to limit the growth and power of the federal government and to limit how involved they could be in people's every day life.
Despite campaign promises the dems have done nothing to dampen the partisan atmosphere in Washington, in fact they have done the opposite, now they are paying the cost. America does not want to be a single party country.
The filibuster is designed so that an ambitious agenda cannot be passed without a super majority. So if you have an aggressive agenda you need to either get a super majority at the ballot box or figure out how to win some support from the other party. The dems failed to do the first and seem to be offended that they are expected to do the second. The filibuster was designed to keep the majority party from blocking out the minority and to keep major changes to our government and society from being enacted without widespread support.
When the filibuster was being used to block Bush nominees for even minor offices the dems were fine with it but now that the table is turned we have Biden telling us the constitution has been turned on its head. Which I find ironic considering the fact that the constitution was designed to limit the growth and power of the federal government and to limit how involved they could be in people's every day life.
Despite campaign promises the dems have done nothing to dampen the partisan atmosphere in Washington, in fact they have done the opposite, now they are paying the cost. America does not want to be a single party country.
Could the Dems really lose in Mass - Kennedy's seat?
- 18/01/2010 03:19:29 PM
678 Views
- 18/01/2010 03:19:29 PM
678 Views
to quote yogi berra: it ain't over till it's over
- 18/01/2010 04:10:26 PM
262 Views
Oh, if Brown wins, I'm sure he will be out next election.....
- 18/01/2010 04:28:05 PM
263 Views
Even if he loses and it is close I think it will scare a lot of democrats
- 18/01/2010 04:15:03 PM
270 Views
If we don't get a handle on healthcare it will destroy the economy.
- 18/01/2010 06:01:18 PM
266 Views
It makes people question their priorities
- 18/01/2010 08:17:16 PM
337 Views
Maybe they should.
- 18/01/2010 09:47:11 PM
296 Views
You act like America is a collective
- 18/01/2010 10:16:39 PM
353 Views
Is it? What are the Republicans offering for the non-insured?
- 18/01/2010 10:20:42 PM
258 Views
Tort reform
- 18/01/2010 10:33:01 PM
250 Views
Ah yes. Which they're quite right about, of course - but one item does not a policy make. *NM*
- 18/01/2010 10:35:55 PM
120 Views
purchase insurance across state lines
- 18/01/2010 10:44:54 PM
253 Views
the dems don't see insurance companies as the enemy either
- 18/01/2010 11:09:24 PM
255 Views
that simply proves they are inept
- 19/01/2010 01:45:33 PM
255 Views
Or in the lobbies' pockets, or both; now you understand why the left is as mad as the right.
- 19/01/2010 11:55:14 PM
274 Views
Of course they did nothing for the 6 years they controlled Congress.
- 19/01/2010 12:39:44 AM
314 Views
That isn't true, my mother-in-law can now afford to buy her medicine
- 19/01/2010 01:57:28 PM
337 Views
Curious about the last part.
- 20/01/2010 12:05:40 AM
344 Views
There are some basic flaws in your argument
- 20/01/2010 03:18:58 PM
251 Views
The state laws are the result of the gentlemens agreement and the feds not minding the store.
- 20/01/2010 06:18:50 PM
317 Views
America, like all groups of people, IS a collective, however diverse.
- 19/01/2010 02:02:24 AM
391 Views
but it doesn't think like a collective
- 20/01/2010 03:25:29 PM
247 Views
Yes, I realize human beings are selfish; that's something to overcome, not embrace.
- 20/01/2010 06:21:33 PM
242 Views
I know who I'm voting for!
- 18/01/2010 04:26:29 PM
289 Views
- 18/01/2010 04:26:29 PM
289 Views
I'm starting to think.....
- 18/01/2010 04:33:23 PM
279 Views
Certainly, he wouldn't stand a chance without protest votes. *NM*
- 18/01/2010 04:45:37 PM
127 Views
That whole "filibuster-proof" concept was a lot more valid...
- 18/01/2010 04:44:51 PM
353 Views
I have seen this argument elsewhere and I am not sure it makes sense
- 18/01/2010 05:28:57 PM
332 Views
It does not make sense if it's used in a partisan way, that's true.
- 18/01/2010 05:43:10 PM
358 Views
I think the fillibuster is with in the spirit and the law on the constitution
- 18/01/2010 06:03:55 PM
332 Views
I hope so. If people like me support Brown, then you know the Democrats are fucked.
- 18/01/2010 05:13:27 PM
282 Views
It's amazing, but even GWB and the R's didn't alienate the public so quickly.....
- 18/01/2010 10:02:27 PM
275 Views
I read Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com and he's refusing to call it...
- 18/01/2010 11:03:03 PM
268 Views
Wuss (that's directed facetiously at Silver, btw, not you seriously. )
- 19/01/2010 02:31:58 AM
367 Views

