[On the filibuster, bipartisanship and third party involvement.]
(02-02-01) {Responding to "Abolish the Filibuster!" by Timothy Noah in Slate, Chatterbox.}
The filibuster does seem like a useless tool. It, like the Electoral College, is rarely used for the good they were intended. However, the vote for Ashcroft does help support it as a tool to define bipartisan, if anything can. The interesting thing is that both sides claim bipartisanship. The Republicans with the idea that it was a bipartisan vote since 8 Democrats were on the side of the nominee. The Democrats with the idea that they split votes and did not vote in a block. I would like a little more on why the Republicans can make this claim though.
It really seems that the Dems have three points on their side. One, the Democrats that voted for Ashcroft, were the ones that made that decision. Two, the Republicans were unified in their support. And three, the Democrats had enough to block a cloture if they had stuck together, but chose not to waste the country's time and offered another olive branch to a white flag.
I do feel that enough white flags(whoops)olive branches were offered with the earlier Senate confirmations, and if this was not important enough to filibuster, what would be?
However there are also three important political motives for the olive branches, and one is to define the terms that Bush uses. If they are surrounded by olive branches, the Republicans will be caught up in their own words, before they can get out.
The second political motive is that it only takes one to start a filibuster, but reality is, that not enough would choose to continue it because they are not being as partisan as the other side and its nominee. Third, they will have established this record and try to use it in the next election.
More important though, is that abolishing the filibuster will do too much to drive us to majority rule. That is a bigger point you saved for last. Decisions on the process, let alone legislation, should not be made based on the convenience of those with power. But wait till a third party tries to use it. Whoops. Maybe it would be worth having a third party, if it could contribute to the proper use of a dictionary without the shifting sands of political power.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query filibuster. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query filibuster. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, September 06, 2002
Monday, May 23, 2005
Filibuster Final Draft
FILIBUSTER MORE IMPORTANT THAN BOLTON.
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Filibuster more important FOR JUSTICE and against judges than Bolton.
[The previous post may be a footnote to the following, which had been in rough draft, but now serves as a preface, with footnote below and final link.]
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
He or his attorney general claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the cultural war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
He or his attorney general claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the cultural war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
WEDGE ISSUE? UNITING ISSUE: The Filibuster
Even before seeing the following, States set to fight, defy driver’s license rules
Object to new federal requirements with no funding I thought it could be a uniting issue that should also save the filibuster.
The States must sue the Federal Administration for unfunded mandates. Beyond the reasoning that drivers licenses are to make roads safe, not the airways, this must also be tied to the concern about loss of the filibuster. The Senate beyond representing the minority, it also represents the States in a form of equal representation. If there is no taxation without representation, there should be no trickle down mandates without funding. The Senate and the Supreme Court along with the filibuster must be seen as protecting “States Rights” as well as the minority.
Object to new federal requirements with no funding I thought it could be a uniting issue that should also save the filibuster.
The States must sue the Federal Administration for unfunded mandates. Beyond the reasoning that drivers licenses are to make roads safe, not the airways, this must also be tied to the concern about loss of the filibuster. The Senate beyond representing the minority, it also represents the States in a form of equal representation. If there is no taxation without representation, there should be no trickle down mandates without funding. The Senate and the Supreme Court along with the filibuster must be seen as protecting “States Rights” as well as the minority.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Rough Draft (Update/not)
[Posted AS IS 7-15-09]
democrats come through?: Reid to Baucus The Magic Number?
My original number included some strategy where 41 Democrats can maintain a filibuster but without Republicans presenting anything but opposition it is hard to see progress. But the magic is that Democrats do not need 60 votes to pass a bill, only to end a filibuster. Those are separate questions and in fact supported by the Democratic aversion to supporting a filibuster.
Obama's Clueless Liberal Critics Bruce Bartlett The Daily Beast7-8-09
pre-footnoted
1-12-09
1-28-09
1-28-09
Bang for the Buck
democrats come through?: Reid to Baucus The Magic Number?
My original number included some strategy where 41 Democrats can maintain a filibuster but without Republicans presenting anything but opposition it is hard to see progress. But the magic is that Democrats do not need 60 votes to pass a bill, only to end a filibuster. Those are separate questions and in fact supported by the Democratic aversion to supporting a filibuster.
Obama's Clueless Liberal Critics Bruce Bartlett The Daily Beast7-8-09
pre-footnoted
1-12-09
1-28-09
1-28-09
Bang for the Buck
Monday, October 17, 2011
Republicans Filibuster Economy
There, no more misledership!
Durbin Calls for Change to Filibuster Rule
Content from Legislation not Politics!(post asterisk *)
[Sorting it out: It was Eric Cantor who accused the President of politics over legislating. That is a ridiculous line of argument. As someone said about the market operating on society, like Siamese Twins performing brain surgery on themselves. But taking it to the bank or kitchen or pulpit,(the ridiculous line that is), the answer is in one word. VOTE! Up or down, package or separately, limit the filibuster, use reconciliation, WHATEVER! A vote is taking a stand. Take it and run on it, not from it. BUT THEN WE HAVE THE MESSAGE TO GET THROUGH THE MESS AGE OF THE MEDIA, not even punning on ledership. The American Jobs Act did not get voted down, it failed a cloture vote(50-49). That means that even if three more Democrats had voted with the rest, it would have been 53-46, but it takes 60 votes people!]
(*) post-asterisk at link, go there for more links, but I have rearranged two in this content: If Republicans want to walk the talk, of Where are the Jobs?* Then vote on every last one of these, as well as the American Jobs Act[*], and see who will be left on the ship of fools.
NOW MORE CONTEXT... later (Well maybe)
[just posted from draft]
Durbin Calls for Change to Filibuster Rule
Content from Legislation not Politics!(post asterisk *)
[Sorting it out: It was Eric Cantor who accused the President of politics over legislating. That is a ridiculous line of argument. As someone said about the market operating on society, like Siamese Twins performing brain surgery on themselves. But taking it to the bank or kitchen or pulpit,(the ridiculous line that is), the answer is in one word. VOTE! Up or down, package or separately, limit the filibuster, use reconciliation, WHATEVER! A vote is taking a stand. Take it and run on it, not from it. BUT THEN WE HAVE THE MESSAGE TO GET THROUGH THE MESS AGE OF THE MEDIA, not even punning on ledership. The American Jobs Act did not get voted down, it failed a cloture vote(50-49). That means that even if three more Democrats had voted with the rest, it would have been 53-46, but it takes 60 votes people!]
(*) post-asterisk at link, go there for more links, but I have rearranged two in this content: If Republicans want to walk the talk, of Where are the Jobs?* Then vote on every last one of these, as well as the American Jobs Act[*], and see who will be left on the ship of fools.
NOW MORE CONTEXT... later (Well maybe)
[just posted from draft]
Friday, July 18, 2008
On the Flip-Flop.
Update: from "my friends" humor indicates authenticity
And Satire class action?
"mental depression" no joke...
neither is Schizophrenia (nfry)(nor planning to)
But on the flip-flop of McCain(or FOX)and Friends David Sirota is spotting the gymnasts, while I would suggest a filibuster.
How do I get there? The Democrats should hold a filibuster in honor of the Republicans flip-flop on the filibuster and set their record straight and place a moratorium on "do nothing" Republicans.
[7-23-08: Gergen suggestion ]
And Satire class action?
"mental depression" no joke...
neither is Schizophrenia (nfry)(nor planning to)
But on the flip-flop of McCain(or FOX)and Friends David Sirota is spotting the gymnasts, while I would suggest a filibuster.
How do I get there? The Democrats should hold a filibuster in honor of the Republicans flip-flop on the filibuster and set their record straight and place a moratorium on "do nothing" Republicans.
[7-23-08: Gergen suggestion ]
Monday, January 30, 2006
Filibuster failed. NOW UP OR DOWN.
The current support for Alito for Supreme Court is 57 to 38. That is with 4 Democrats and 1 Republican listed in the C-Span analysis. That means that if those opposed and those undecided had made a stand against cloture we would still be filibustering or debating. Cloture passed 72-25 with 53 Republicans and 19 Democrats supporting the end of debate and a scheduled vote up or down tomorrow.
The fact that a vote is scheduled does not mean that debate is over and I suggest those wavering to read Senator Max Baucus's statement today on why Samuel Alito does not meet his criterion for approval.
Here is a plea that I sent earlier to Senator Conrad of North Dakota:
Dear Senator Conrad
Your oath is to the constitution, the constitution begins "we the people", Alito is for voting his conscience and giving the president that power over the law. You have a choice that is very difficult, but do not bet that things cannot get worse because of your choice.
To me it is clear,
NO ON ALITO!
NO ON CLOTURE!
NO ON CHANGING SENATE RULES!
If you can not find in in your conscience to vote 3 "No"s, at least protect the tradition and duties of the senate (by supporting the filibuster by not changing the Senate Rules), as distinguished from the House which actually should put new light on your point that you represent your constituents.
Here are my points. The filibuster survived, it just did not work. Republicans did not have to resort to changing or violating Senate rules and messing with it's traditions and the way it protects the constitution.
But that does not mean that Senators still cannot consider carefully when they uphold their oath to protect the constitution, and not just vote their party line or their conscience or resort to the political calculus which says they are representing their constituents.
The fact that a vote is scheduled does not mean that debate is over and I suggest those wavering to read Senator Max Baucus's statement today on why Samuel Alito does not meet his criterion for approval.
Here is a plea that I sent earlier to Senator Conrad of North Dakota:
Dear Senator Conrad
Your oath is to the constitution, the constitution begins "we the people", Alito is for voting his conscience and giving the president that power over the law. You have a choice that is very difficult, but do not bet that things cannot get worse because of your choice.
To me it is clear,
NO ON ALITO!
NO ON CLOTURE!
NO ON CHANGING SENATE RULES!
If you can not find in in your conscience to vote 3 "No"s, at least protect the tradition and duties of the senate (by supporting the filibuster by not changing the Senate Rules), as distinguished from the House which actually should put new light on your point that you represent your constituents.
Here are my points. The filibuster survived, it just did not work. Republicans did not have to resort to changing or violating Senate rules and messing with it's traditions and the way it protects the constitution.
But that does not mean that Senators still cannot consider carefully when they uphold their oath to protect the constitution, and not just vote their party line or their conscience or resort to the political calculus which says they are representing their constituents.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
CON TEXT / CON SCIENCE ABOUT THE PROCESS!
Filibuster Alito for Constitution's Sake
An Open Letter to SENATORS(in particular moderates who bargained away their duties for the sake of protecting Senate traditions and rules regarding the filibuster)
(Slightly edited from fax sent 1-18-06 to)
Honorable Senator Nelson:
A "unitary philosophy" puts you out of a job, and the people out of the picture. This philosophy has existed prior to the unprecedented selection of Bush over the people. The (constitutional)design of three branches of government requires each to do it's job, and the process (in you) are the arbiters. If you do not stand for the people and the constitution’s principles, do you know what you are standing for?
I feel that it is crucial that you oppose Mr. Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.
If that is not possible due to the political dangers of your area, it is at least crucial that you stand for the terms of your judicial compromise that prevented the busting of the filibuster in earlier nominations to the judiciary. UNLESS of course that you feel that the Democrats had the opportunity for "advice and consent" as explained in said document.
Politics and the law are more than games, they make the rules for the games that are our lives. Please do not gamble that things cannot get worse or that you can know what is in the conscience* of one that seems to be above the law. That is their philosophy as stated by Bush and demonstrated by his actions. Their conscience is above the law, is yours?
Failing to persuade you on your vote on Alito, at least stand up for your compromise, do not vote for cloture.
* During Bush's 2000 campaign, I noted when he pointed out that his conscience was above any campaign laws. That may have been the Rubicon, now we may only have politics, tyranny or anarchy.
An Open Letter to SENATORS(in particular moderates who bargained away their duties for the sake of protecting Senate traditions and rules regarding the filibuster)
(Slightly edited from fax sent 1-18-06 to)
Honorable Senator Nelson:
A "unitary philosophy" puts you out of a job, and the people out of the picture. This philosophy has existed prior to the unprecedented selection of Bush over the people. The (constitutional)design of three branches of government requires each to do it's job, and the process (in you) are the arbiters. If you do not stand for the people and the constitution’s principles, do you know what you are standing for?
I feel that it is crucial that you oppose Mr. Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.
If that is not possible due to the political dangers of your area, it is at least crucial that you stand for the terms of your judicial compromise that prevented the busting of the filibuster in earlier nominations to the judiciary. UNLESS of course that you feel that the Democrats had the opportunity for "advice and consent" as explained in said document.
Politics and the law are more than games, they make the rules for the games that are our lives. Please do not gamble that things cannot get worse or that you can know what is in the conscience* of one that seems to be above the law. That is their philosophy as stated by Bush and demonstrated by his actions. Their conscience is above the law, is yours?
Failing to persuade you on your vote on Alito, at least stand up for your compromise, do not vote for cloture.
* During Bush's 2000 campaign, I noted when he pointed out that his conscience was above any campaign laws. That may have been the Rubicon, now we may only have politics, tyranny or anarchy.
Friday, January 17, 2003
The filibuster is now in the news as a method to counter judicial nominees that have previously been rejected. My view is that it is warranted on a case by case basis now if ever.
I would recommend an interesting book that I will likely comment further on later. “Democracy’s Discontent” by Michael J. Sandel. Subtitled. “America in Search of a Public Philosophy”. The back has flattering comments from George F. Will, which is at least interesting since Mr. Sandel is a Professor of Government at Harvard University. I will summarize the topic of the book at this time as a view of constitutional evolution that he would role back.
At this time I note my posting on Sept 6th. .....
[02-02-01 {Responding to "Abolish the Filibuster!" by Timothy Noah in Slate, Chatterbox.} The filibuster does seem like a useless tool. .....]
and [ASHCROFT CONFIRMED (On bi-partisanship) 02-02-01 The confirmation of Sen. Ashcroft for Attorney General is not an example of a failure but of proper politics. There were not enough votes ....so we may be hopeful, but we must be wary. However, such risks must not be taken on lifetime appointment to any judiciary positions. The Ashcroft opposition was certainly not as vicious as those that supported him. That, I am afraid, is not behind us.]
I would recommend an interesting book that I will likely comment further on later. “Democracy’s Discontent” by Michael J. Sandel. Subtitled. “America in Search of a Public Philosophy”. The back has flattering comments from George F. Will, which is at least interesting since Mr. Sandel is a Professor of Government at Harvard University. I will summarize the topic of the book at this time as a view of constitutional evolution that he would role back.
At this time I note my posting on Sept 6th. .....
[02-02-01 {Responding to "Abolish the Filibuster!" by Timothy Noah in Slate, Chatterbox.} The filibuster does seem like a useless tool. .....]
and [ASHCROFT CONFIRMED (On bi-partisanship) 02-02-01 The confirmation of Sen. Ashcroft for Attorney General is not an example of a failure but of proper politics. There were not enough votes ....so we may be hopeful, but we must be wary. However, such risks must not be taken on lifetime appointment to any judiciary positions. The Ashcroft opposition was certainly not as vicious as those that supported him. That, I am afraid, is not behind us.]
Friday, September 06, 2002
Ashcroft Confirmed
[On bi-partisanship.]
(2-01-01)The confirmation of Sen. Ashcroft for Attorney General is not an example of a failure but of proper politics. There were not enough votes to support a filibuster so why start one. There were enough votes that opposed Ashcroft to show that a filibuster was possible if the Democrats had been partisan. But a filibuster would have only drawn ire from the middle. Hopefully this is as Sen. Russell Feingold says, "an olive branch, not a white flag." Also I hope that when more important matters arise, that they will not fail to stand up for principles. Ashcroft has made some amazing statements contrary to previous actions so we may be hopeful, but we must be wary. However, such risks must not be taken on lifetime appointment to any judiciary positions. The Ashcroft opposition was certainly not as vicious as those that supported him. That, I am afraid, is not behind us.
(2-01-01)The confirmation of Sen. Ashcroft for Attorney General is not an example of a failure but of proper politics. There were not enough votes to support a filibuster so why start one. There were enough votes that opposed Ashcroft to show that a filibuster was possible if the Democrats had been partisan. But a filibuster would have only drawn ire from the middle. Hopefully this is as Sen. Russell Feingold says, "an olive branch, not a white flag." Also I hope that when more important matters arise, that they will not fail to stand up for principles. Ashcroft has made some amazing statements contrary to previous actions so we may be hopeful, but we must be wary. However, such risks must not be taken on lifetime appointment to any judiciary positions. The Ashcroft opposition was certainly not as vicious as those that supported him. That, I am afraid, is not behind us.
Friday, September 21, 2007
To Democrats in the Senate:
CAP THE FILIBUSTER!
First I would like to support the filibuster as one of the best protections for the rights of the minority. But here are a few questions I pose:
The only thing that seems to come from this is the understanding that progress is so hard to make. "Compromise" was a key word in the defense of the Republican's expecting some from the Democrats, but if voters will look at the bills presented, they must ask who and what is already compromised.
The answer to the first question may be: Because the Democrats want to get things done.
If there is any validity to the claim that Democrats are "do nothing"(which is a strategy the Republicans promote), how can that hold water, when the minority Republicans won't allow votes to be held, even when they would be vetoed. Not to mention the power a minority of Progressive Democrats are not using, to make sure nothing gets done when it is warranted.
May the Republicans long hold the Right of the minority. It should be clear the the Democrats are making compromises, not necessarily good or bad or getting anywhere. But sometimes they are holding together. That is another number to watch.
First I would like to support the filibuster as one of the best protections for the rights of the minority. But here are a few questions I pose:
Why are Republicans not required to hold the floor if they are filibustering?
I would suggest that a cap be put first on cloture votes and keep them talking to show who is stalling.
What is the number of cloture votes taken versus successful legislation passed? (1 in 6 as of July.)
It would seem that things are already mucked up quite a bit, with cloture vote on top of cloture vote, just how would they carry on all this filibustering at the same time?
It seems difficult to right this course, and the Democrats are at the helm.
The Democrats had a period of success and "hard work" at the start of the session, I think it is time they put their foot down, and start forcing filibusters. There are only so many hours to congress. Is there not a time limit for each and are there enough hours left?
The only thing that seems to come from this is the understanding that progress is so hard to make. "Compromise" was a key word in the defense of the Republican's expecting some from the Democrats, but if voters will look at the bills presented, they must ask who and what is already compromised.
The answer to the first question may be: Because the Democrats want to get things done.
If there is any validity to the claim that Democrats are "do nothing"(which is a strategy the Republicans promote), how can that hold water, when the minority Republicans won't allow votes to be held, even when they would be vetoed. Not to mention the power a minority of Progressive Democrats are not using, to make sure nothing gets done when it is warranted.
May the Republicans long hold the Right of the minority. It should be clear the the Democrats are making compromises, not necessarily good or bad or getting anywhere. But sometimes they are holding together. That is another number to watch.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Do Nothing Filibuster
First I must say there has been progress. (Updated)
But there is need for a flip-flop while it is still a high wire act if you do the math.
On the bright side a comparison to the Republican wave of 1994 and the 1997 congress shows Democrats getting things done. But if we could get it together there are 10 Democrats that are so called "not progressive", and some of the best known "progressives" rated "only kinda" number another 11.(from above: you do the math) But Democrats should be able to get it together to highlite the fact that they have made progress despite their numbers and the media coverage.
A recent whine of the right about the media could be the occasion for investigations, but that would be too much on the table. So maybe I have made my own flip-flop here or lost momentum in the math of getting it together. But when it comes to accountability, it is easy to get fired up again.
Basically the math is so difficult, not just because of the unity of Republicans and the diversity of Democrats, but the bulk of problems that have resulted from the variables in the equation of our constitutional government, and what is for someseemingly {*} only political calculus.
[BREAKING/BROKEN? If there were ever time for a filibuster: THIS IS IT! not to mention INVESTIGATIONS!]
{*} go there see [*]
But there is need for a flip-flop while it is still a high wire act if you do the math.
On the bright side a comparison to the Republican wave of 1994 and the 1997 congress shows Democrats getting things done. But if we could get it together there are 10 Democrats that are so called "not progressive", and some of the best known "progressives" rated "only kinda" number another 11.(from above: you do the math) But Democrats should be able to get it together to highlite the fact that they have made progress despite their numbers and the media coverage.
A recent whine of the right about the media could be the occasion for investigations, but that would be too much on the table. So maybe I have made my own flip-flop here or lost momentum in the math of getting it together. But when it comes to accountability, it is easy to get fired up again.
Basically the math is so difficult, not just because of the unity of Republicans and the diversity of Democrats, but the bulk of problems that have resulted from the variables in the equation of our constitutional government, and what is for someseemingly {*} only political calculus.
[BREAKING/BROKEN? If there were ever time for a filibuster: THIS IS IT! not to mention INVESTIGATIONS!]
{*} go there see [*]
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Progressive Break Fast
Campaign for America's Future.
The above link is a compendium of news, comments & hope for progress.
Meanwhile I have made a few comments w/minor corrections **,
but bring this up much as it is(was):
** see [*]& comment 2 there
*** the holding water bit is a play on the Hardball promo regarding Chris Matthews' style of argument, Waterloo, and his leaking all over the mirror Howard Dean holds up. But I really did not intend a restroom metaphor, and so it goes.
[Apologies for the anachronistic asterisks and shuffled links but Rachel Maddow's were not yet available and I wished to bring up a few points. Howard Fineman clarifies the fine men or Frank & Obamba not to mention the Governor in Rendell link. While the beast was the unicorn of 60 yet not meek Senator Stabinow, not to mention the Ouch of Geek Irony.]
[translation of apologies/index of links]
mirror: Matthews/Dean Hardball
beasts: Maddow/Stabinow unicorn filibuster
ouch moment: Maddow/parody of TeaDay
Fine Man: Maddow/Fineman Frank Obama
Governor: Maddow/Rendell
downe: Browne
Not to mention BTW: Ed Schultz/Huffington
Not: Schultz/Lanny Davis
Ed.:Schultz/Gibbs
And Countdown. Keith Olbermann/Gibbs et al.
Lawrence O'Donnell
Harpers/Gitmo
tasteless/Brown
Obama/promise?
The above link is a compendium of news, comments & hope for progress.
Meanwhile I have made a few comments w/minor corrections **,
but bring this up much as it is(was):
Does the Massachusetts vote mean that the House should pass the Senate Bill, or should they reject it?
My view is it should get a vote, up or down or side ways* meaning risking some changes, risking the filibuster. Then the Senate can up or down it, or break it up. Speaking of holding water or breaking a mirror.***
* just as Ed Shultz was unclear about the ping pong potential, this is as tricky a net in the parlaimentary procedures that would offer this option. (Reconciliation or Nuclear Option)[Adjusted snippets of original continued.] [Psst...(Rachell)Speaking of "mythical beasts"(...)at least Barney Frank got the mess-age(...){Ouch: Moment of Meek to Fine Man?} (and Governor Ed Rendell say and does go downe.)
BTW: It is Senator Reid, not House Speaker, Ed.(Take nothing from the order of these links than that I do not recall which has Ed confused on the Reid/Pelosi positions in the process but great coverage and dialogue.)
** see [*]& comment 2 there
*** the holding water bit is a play on the Hardball promo regarding Chris Matthews' style of argument, Waterloo, and his leaking all over the mirror Howard Dean holds up. But I really did not intend a restroom metaphor, and so it goes.
[Apologies for the anachronistic asterisks and shuffled links but Rachel Maddow's were not yet available and I wished to bring up a few points. Howard Fineman clarifies the fine men or Frank & Obamba not to mention the Governor in Rendell link. While the beast was the unicorn of 60 yet not meek Senator Stabinow, not to mention the Ouch of Geek Irony.]
[translation of apologies/index of links]
mirror: Matthews/Dean Hardball
beasts: Maddow/Stabinow unicorn filibuster
ouch moment: Maddow/parody of TeaDay
Fine Man: Maddow/Fineman Frank Obama
Governor: Maddow/Rendell
downe: Browne
Not to mention BTW: Ed Schultz/Huffington
Not: Schultz/Lanny Davis
Ed.:Schultz/Gibbs
And Countdown. Keith Olbermann/Gibbs et al.
Lawrence O'Donnell
Harpers/Gitmo
tasteless/Brown
Obama/promise?
Friday, May 23, 2008
Straight Talk Express?
Or Real Clear Politics
(nfry)But do I have to? Or should I hit The Trail?
Which would be "politic"? The good thing is that at least the former is only his words, and the latter is not his fault for being more viscious but will there be more course talk? I mean will it still be there when I get around to reading it?
Flash analysis: Filibuster, Flip-flop and appeasement Fridays. OK. David Bender is discussing The New GI Bill on The Rachel Maddow Show, and his theory is that the president will veto the bill to give the Republicans cover to run from him. I don't believe I got that right. I may have switched course midstream, and need to check back later.
But a point not lost is that the Republicans have flip-flopped on the filibuster from trying to abolish it to using it without using it on every vote. Meaning that the Democrats have appeased the Republicans on the rules. It is political but it is about progress. It was also not necessarily the point Bender was making except for the potential flip-flop on a veto.
(nfry)But do I have to? Or should I hit The Trail?
Which would be "politic"? The good thing is that at least the former is only his words, and the latter is not his fault for being more viscious but will there be more course talk? I mean will it still be there when I get around to reading it?
Flash analysis: Filibuster, Flip-flop and appeasement Fridays. OK. David Bender is discussing The New GI Bill on The Rachel Maddow Show, and his theory is that the president will veto the bill to give the Republicans cover to run from him. I don't believe I got that right. I may have switched course midstream, and need to check back later.
But a point not lost is that the Republicans have flip-flopped on the filibuster from trying to abolish it to using it without using it on every vote. Meaning that the Democrats have appeased the Republicans on the rules. It is political but it is about progress. It was also not necessarily the point Bender was making except for the potential flip-flop on a veto.
Friday, December 10, 2010
4M 2 $M
4 um to buck 'em
or
4 'em to money media?
I "heart" BS? Bernie Sanders?*
Not exactly a filibuster.
But moving the goal posts?
[I am truly split between being encouraged by the President, the Democratic Caucus and actually getting the right thing done. I hope it is more than just a lesson plan for sacrifice. Basically Bernie Sanders is sorting out what is wrong and what can be improved in the so-called compromise, which I hope is not the lamb.]
*thanks to Thom Hartmann** [Update: 12-13-10 Risky Business]
[less benefits to rich, more investment in country infrastucture and safety net]
** see update link to Sanders filibuster under Risky, to Clinton under Business
or
4 'em to money media?
I "heart" BS? Bernie Sanders?*
Not exactly a filibuster.
But moving the goal posts?
[I am truly split between being encouraged by the President, the Democratic Caucus and actually getting the right thing done. I hope it is more than just a lesson plan for sacrifice. Basically Bernie Sanders is sorting out what is wrong and what can be improved in the so-called compromise, which I hope is not the lamb.]
*thanks to Thom Hartmann** [Update: 12-13-10 Risky Business]
[less benefits to rich, more investment in country infrastucture and safety net]
** see update link to Sanders filibuster under Risky, to Clinton under Business
Monday, April 01, 2013
FOOTNOTE PAGE APRIL 2013
4-1-13 April * 1st. Big
Bagel Theory: Springs from labels. (the * 1st are tangent shall references to April.) Not to be shell games for grown ups.
4-2-13: Sorting by order read(ge me oh) or inserted(heck tricks) followed by lines 3, 1 and 4. [** follow up?]
4-3-13 Charlotte's Web: Original search(Share) Ctrl F two "montage"('n Angle) / Not to[FP2] dimention.
4-4-13 (b.s. ) funny+thing: A. A Funny Thing Happened... (sc)[!] B... (Kantinued...?)
[FP2.(oh) [Re:asterisk or FP (too.oh)] Re:A & (sc) i.e. Not to create an MU puzzle, but please scroll over and click on (sc)]
4-5-13 TGIF *NFR Not Fully Read.
4-9-13 Re:Figure & FC: Speaking of bread crumbs ...
Filibuster Bluster* 4-11-13 original title 68-31 to insert Maddow Link. (b.s.) jinx: A. I feel like a Tea Partier!(sc), B. Go Purple!(sc)
4-12-13 : Tan Gents from Mottos. Bottom line is funny. Not ! X, Y, ... [_] <- a=""> the solution is in the tax structure, the problem is in the Norquist. Francis Perkins and the Fiscal Party.
4-15-13: insert Read (footnote tweak). Lost Thatcher reference(to be exhumed)? And OW/bubblenomics ?
4-16-13 Emphasis must be laid on parsing and timing, if not iron knee of profits. Not to further M-bed or spec U late. (b.s.) tail+: A, B, C Tact and Tack
4-17-13: Now fully read. Ctrl F "not read". Irony of threats and political dynamics as undiplomatic and unjust.[ Ctrl F "na•ve": set theory and justice.]
4-18-13: As to two "too"[!] Not to Re-Knot the bottom line, but I thought that gun-control legislation would have a political solution to the obstruction of fear mongers. I had thought that Rebublicans could sign their letter promising a filibuster that would fail. Four Democrats joined them for their political survival, but their votes alone would not have tipped the cloture.
4-22-13 Math is next 2...?
4-23-13 [Ctrl F] is not the pun but the practical. "F" = [find] but also "filter" and "fervor". Nor to pun on 4F or broaden the base.
4-24-13 First change? To read "?" mark. Second line lede or ship!
4-25-13 Two Reads OW... (font is next to #$cape italicism)
4-26-13: Labelism(on the QT), Social Media, Boston Strong, A^ peas meant or Green Genes?[!(o w)?] ^ found by blog search^^ of (red+blue+green) ^^(not the ticket)freedom from dickens?
4-29-13: ***(insert) 4-29-13 Earlier Q.T.[but seriously! (O-W)] Rachel Maddow(2) , Steve Benen(1) & (8)... of Con Fluence or curve
balls?
4-30-13 Lose, Lose Ben Labolt on NOW /
4-30-13 to pun on ING ? (AP?, B, C(c), D, E(e), F, g, )
4-2-13: Sorting by order read(ge me oh) or inserted(heck tricks) followed by lines 3, 1 and 4. [** follow up?]
4-3-13 Charlotte's Web: Original search(Share) Ctrl F two "montage"('n Angle) / Not to[FP2] dimention.
4-4-13 (b.s. ) funny+thing: A. A Funny Thing Happened... (sc)[!] B... (Kantinued...?)
[FP2.(oh) [Re:asterisk or FP (too.oh)] Re:A & (sc) i.e. Not to create an MU puzzle, but please scroll over and click on (sc)]
4-5-13 TGIF *NFR Not Fully Read.
4-9-13 Re:Figure & FC: Speaking of bread crumbs ...
Filibuster Bluster* 4-11-13 original title 68-31 to insert Maddow Link. (b.s.) jinx: A. I feel like a Tea Partier!(sc), B. Go Purple!(sc)
4-12-13 : Tan Gents from Mottos. Bottom line is funny. Not ! X, Y, ... [_] <- a=""> the solution is in the tax structure, the problem is in the Norquist. Francis Perkins and the Fiscal Party.
4-15-13: insert Read (footnote tweak). Lost Thatcher reference(to be exhumed)? And OW/bubblenomics ?
4-16-13 Emphasis must be laid on parsing and timing, if not iron knee of profits. Not to further M-bed or spec U late. (b.s.) tail+: A, B, C Tact and Tack
4-17-13: Now fully read. Ctrl F "not read". Irony of threats and political dynamics as undiplomatic and unjust.[ Ctrl F "na•ve": set theory and justice.]
4-18-13: As to two "too"[!] Not to Re-Knot the bottom line, but I thought that gun-control legislation would have a political solution to the obstruction of fear mongers. I had thought that Rebublicans could sign their letter promising a filibuster that would fail. Four Democrats joined them for their political survival, but their votes alone would not have tipped the cloture.
4-22-13 Math is next 2...?
4-23-13 [Ctrl F] is not the pun but the practical. "F" = [find] but also "filter" and "fervor". Nor to pun on 4F or broaden the base.
4-24-13 First change? To read "?" mark. Second line lede or ship!
4-25-13 Two Reads OW... (font is next to #$cape italicism)
4-26-13: Labelism(on the QT), Social Media, Boston Strong, A^ peas meant or Green Genes?[!(o w)?] ^ found by blog search^^ of (red+blue+green) ^^(not the ticket)freedom from dickens?
4-29-13: ***(insert) 4-29-13 Earlier Q.T.[but seriously! (O-W)] Rachel Maddow(2) , Steve Benen(1) & (8)... of Con Fluence or curve
balls?
4-30-13 Lose, Lose Ben Labolt on NOW /
4-30-13 to pun on ING ? (AP?, B, C(c), D, E(e), F, g, )
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Vaccination for our Castor Oil.
With the confirmation of Priscilla Owen, we must vaccinate ourselves from what one of the participants of the Gang of 14 called the castor oil which the compromise was. With the veto expected on the Stem Cell bill, we will see that it is not a matter of an up or down vote, or majority rule. It is not even a matter of morality. It is a matter of politics or Bush trying to reason. (Tangent later.)
The vaccination must come to the argument David Brooks made and to which Al Franken agreed was a precedent with the Owen vote, bringing down the barrier of what constitutes where “Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.”
In my opinion this is a risky bet but on principle the barrier has not been dropped. The three nominees were part of the compromise made as part of upholding the filibuster. These nominees should set no precedence that would change their view that the filibuster is constitutional and for the best of the country. This logic is binding to the extent that in Part II, B. they have agreed not to change the rules with a majority vote.
The vaccination must come to the argument David Brooks made and to which Al Franken agreed was a precedent with the Owen vote, bringing down the barrier of what constitutes where “Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.”
In my opinion this is a risky bet but on principle the barrier has not been dropped. The three nominees were part of the compromise made as part of upholding the filibuster. These nominees should set no precedence that would change their view that the filibuster is constitutional and for the best of the country. This logic is binding to the extent that in Part II, B. they have agreed not to change the rules with a majority vote.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Temporary Victory for Filibuster
Here are two titles I hope not to need:
Tyranny of the Centrist Minority
or Senate Committee of Faith Based Principles
There maybe be hope, but it may be only postponement.
I commend the coming to an agreement, but there seems little that holds either side to whatever they agreed to. It seems that it would only be binding on the participants with both sides having reserved their rights to change their mind later, which is not very reassuring.
The agreement is only for them to come to a vote. Now we can hold Senators accountable for a vote and this agreement. Meaning only that the filibuster will not succeed on three nominees, but with little promise that we not return to more divisiveness.
Tyranny of the Centrist Minority
or Senate Committee of Faith Based Principles
There maybe be hope, but it may be only postponement.
I commend the coming to an agreement, but there seems little that holds either side to whatever they agreed to. It seems that it would only be binding on the participants with both sides having reserved their rights to change their mind later, which is not very reassuring.
The agreement is only for them to come to a vote. Now we can hold Senators accountable for a vote and this agreement. Meaning only that the filibuster will not succeed on three nominees, but with little promise that we not return to more divisiveness.
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
MAY 2013 Footnote Page Four
5-1-13: More (b.s.)*= Nail
Meet F--C---[!], More
Breaking Filters, Regime
Rhetoric Reply, Flash
Back(s.c. ?), Fast
Forward(s.c.) / / Continued from FP3: (guilt by & swift craft, done) Line+to+cross: A(a), B, C, D, E(e), F, G, H, I, J(j), K(k), LOL, M. Line+top+walk: A, B, C(c), D(d), E(e), F(f)
Rise+Tide: A(a), B(b), C, D, E (e), F(f)**, G(g)**, H(h) . (it is not so much to keep up with the message but to record the change
* not exactly(WTO) but blog search hit the fulcrum
** expired must refresh also
5-10-13 Knot? A. Poetic Justice, B. Justice?, c, D. Technical Difficulties!, E. Pass the Trillion.
5-15-13 TFR : Not to pan.[ A., (fn)FOR D..., Budget Bandits?, D., E., F.The Read C?, G., H.Jabber Walkie?, I.Pun it?, J.Game+Lock, K.Connecting the Dots, L.Filibuster Bluster*, M.Knot Even, N.Re:Figure, O.All Politics is Local!, P.Me a , Q, R. ] ( Mind your P's and Q's.) Speaking of brackets!
5-17-13 Not to jump in the Lacuna [!]
5-30-13: RE Tan Gent shall ism ?
Rise+Tide: A(a), B(b), C, D, E (e), F(f)**, G(g)**, H(h) . (it is not so much to keep up with the message but to record the change
* not exactly(WTO) but blog search hit the fulcrum
** expired must refresh also
5-10-13 Knot? A. Poetic Justice, B. Justice?, c, D. Technical Difficulties!, E. Pass the Trillion.
5-15-13 TFR : Not to pan.[ A., (fn)FOR D..., Budget Bandits?, D., E., F.The Read C?, G., H.Jabber Walkie?, I.Pun it?, J.Game+Lock, K.Connecting the Dots, L.Filibuster Bluster*, M.Knot Even, N.Re:Figure, O.All Politics is Local!, P.Me a , Q, R. ] ( Mind your P's and Q's.) Speaking of brackets!
5-17-13 Not to jump in the Lacuna [!]
5-30-13: RE Tan Gent shall ism ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)