New Figures Reveal Aggressive GOP Obstructionist Strategy by Sam Stein

rusty quoin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-22-07 08:08 AM
Original message

New Figures Reveal Aggressive GOP Obstructionist Strategy by Sam Stein

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/21/new-figures-reveal-aggres_n_65374.html

This past Wednesday, for the second time in almost as many months, Senator Jim Webb, D-VA, introduced a piece of Iraq war legislation that failed to pass the Senate despite gaining a majority of its votes.

Technically speaking, Webb's measure - which would have given soldiers as much time at home as their previous tour deployed - was not filibustered. Prior to its introduction, Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed that, in order to avoid a procedural tit-for-tat, there would be a 60-vote threshold on all Defense Authorization amendments. Nevertheless, seeing his pet project defeated for the second time, even with the support of 55 other Senators, left Webb a bit steamed.
"I would say to my colleagues that the American people are watching us today, and they are watching closely," the Virginian declared. "They are tired of the posturing that is giving the Congress such a bad reputation. And they are tired of the procedural strategies designed to protect politicians from accountability."

I think Webb is right. Less polite procedures and more fight! Stop it with the gentlemen's agreements.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

uberblonde

(993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-22-07 08:31 AM
Response to Original message

1. He could start with his MoveOn vote.

Yeah, that was a message of "strength." My question is, who was he trying to impress?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rusty quoin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-22-07 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #1

2. The Moveon resolution should not have gotten to the floor.

Edited on Sat Sep-22-07 08:40 AM by rusty quoin

It seemed that Boxer, with her resolution was trying to outmaneuver Repubs, but failed. The important votes, though, like restoration of habeas corpus, and Webb Amendment, should not need 60 votes to pass. I want to see a real debate, a fight. And I want to see Bush having to veto something like the Webb Amendment. How's that for supporting troops.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MissWaverly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-22-07 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #2

3. 60 votes is a joke

how many major bills did the Republicans pass with Cheney providing the tiebreaker vote.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

stranger81

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-22-07 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. And why oh why are the Democrats agreeing to a 60 vote threshold

without requiring the repugs to actually filibuster? Honestly, I can't for the life of me figure out what's in it for them to make such an agreement. If a filibuster takes place, that's only going to make the repugs look obstructionist.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MissWaverly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-22-07 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #4

5. I think its so the Mandella myth guy can't veto

But that doesn't make sense, stand up pass the bills and let the public see Bush veto.

Methinks this is a campaign strategy to work up the base so much that they donate 1000% to
build a solid majority and elect a dem president, but they can't just govern as a campaign strategy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

WCGreen

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-23-07 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #1

7. He's a decorated war veteran...

he's entitled to get pissed off about someone taking shots that he doesn't agree with...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jmp

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-22-07 11:22 PM
Response to Original message

6. lol! What a bunch of sellouts!

Why not a 3/4 requirement? Probably because that might actually end the war.

And we wouldn't want that. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sat May 04th 2024, 04:58 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.