Journal pudge's Journal: OMG The Republicans are Obstructionist and Lying!!! 18
The left was whining about the fact that they "can't" get anything done in the Senate. Then they decided to blame the Republicans for asserting their rights as a minority coalition in the Senate. Now they are crying that the facts are being misrepresented.
You see, the GOP is effectively filibustering the Democrats on an amendment to defense authorization bill. Note that they are not "in fact" filibustering, because "filibuster" is not a legal term. It's more a threat than anything else, at this point. But that threat is certainly there, and the GOP Senators have said they are prepared to do what it takes to prevent the bill from passage, including preventing a vote.
So the Democrats, in a perfectly reasonable move -- though IMO useless -- says, fine, you want to filibuster? Let's actually filibuster. Let's have an all-night session. It is precisely what the GOP did in November 2003 when the Democrats were effectively filibustering the GOP's judicial nominees.
So the left is crying that some people are saying the Democrats are "filibustering" when it is the Republicans who are filibustering and the Democrats are just making it into a real filibuster. But note in that CNN story, Rick Santorum -- a member of the majority -- called the GOP move a "reverse filibuster," meaning it was "filibustering" the filibuster. So when the language was used to describe what the Republicans did in 2003, it was fine. No one cared. But when that same language is used to describe the Democrats doing the same thing
Chuck Schumer said something instructive here, that still applies today, more or less: "All of this probably matters to 500 people: 100 senators, their staffers, and the 50 reporters who cover us, and no one else."
There's nothing new under the sun, Senator.
Granted, this is about the war, and so it matters more than four judicial nominees. But it does not matter to anyone who isn't already paying attention and hasn't already formed opinions. The only thing this might change is that it may improve the approval rating for the Democrats who are being hounded by the antiwar left for "not doing anything." But when, in the end, nothing gets done, their approval rating will slide back. The antiwar left already knows the GOP is obstructing legislation to bring the troops home: they don't care that the Dems cannot do it because they don't have enough votes, because they already know that. They want results, not excuses, and this dog-and-pony show will provide none of the former and more of the latter.
Something I've wondered about (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the Dems and and Independents have caused the Democratic Congress' number to drop from ~60 to ~30, then they have idealistic or ignorant views on what the Dems can actually do as long as Bush can veto.
That is true of SOME of them, sure. For MANY of them, however, they just don't care: if the Congress is not doing what they think the Congress should be doing on what, to them, is an all-consuming issue like The War, they will disapprove of Congress. It's that simple. Congress won't end the war, they therefore disapprove of Congress.
So what Congress is doing tonight is exactly the sort of "action" that will make Congress look better to those people.
No, because this won't change the fact that Congress is not doing what they want Congress to do. They are not saying "at least the Democrats are trying," they are saying,
Re: (Score:2)
So for the people or groups that can be educated and informed, what Congress is doing tonight is exactly the sort of "action" that will make Congress look better to those people.
A blanket "No" statement just isn't true for some of the people I brought up.
Re: (Score:2)
At any rate, the amendment debated tonight would end the war by April to a degree that will satisfy even some of the MANY.
Re: (Score:2)
the amendment debated tonight would end the war by April to a degree that will satisfy even some of the MANY.
And the people who are angry at Congress for not doing anything will only be satisfied if that amendment is passed by both houses, which it will not be, so ... again, these people are not partisans. They are not saying "stupid Republicans for being obstructionist," they are saying "stupid Congress for not getting it done."
I said this the night of the election last year: the worst thing to happen to the Democrats was to win the majority in the Senate. And this is precisely why.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you not get this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, you've just introduced a third group of people. There are the idealistic or ignorant that I mentioned. You're introducing people with ignorant or mistaken views of what Congress can and cannot do.
So for the people or groups that can be educated and informed, what Congress is doing tonight is exactly the sort of "action" that will make Congress look better to those people.
Nonsense. Those people ARE educated and informed, by and large, and to the extent they are not, there is NOTHING happening that will make Congress look better to them, because all they want is RESULTS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
About once a year there's a survey asking if people know who is the Vice President, or House Majority Leader, or do they think Iraq was responsible for 9/11. On the various questions, a quarter, third, even a half of the respondents don't know, or their answer is factually wrong. These people might have thought the Democrats in Congress were doing a good job in March, but now they're partly responsible for the drop in Congress' popularity.
And those are the people that do not care about a silly all-night debate, because they are habitually and perpetually uninformed. They do not flip on the news to hear about this silly all-night debate because they do not flip on the news. They do not know about the all-night debate, and will not know about it, ever.
Hounded by all (Score:2)
The only thing this might change is that it may improve the approval rating for the Democrats who are being hounded by the antiwar left for "not doing anything."
I am most definitely not the antiwar left, and I've been doing my best to give them grief over this, too, at least in the court of public opinion. :)
For that matter, they are also being hounded by the antiwar right [lewrockwell.com]. (All one of them, that is.)
Stupid (Score:2)
This is one of the stupider journal entries you've written in some time.
Your switch into the passive voice makes it sound like Dems are upset because Republicans are misrepresenting facts:
The left was whining about the fact that they "can't" get anything done in the Senate. Then they decided to blame the Republicans for asserting their rights as a minority coalition in the Senate. Now they are crying that the facts are being misrepresented.
Yes, we are upset that "the facts are being misrepresented" -- by Republicans, as you know. But everyone expects that by now. What we're especially upset about is that the media keeps misrepresenting the facts.
As you know, Diane Sawyer, a longtime national political reporter (and former Nixon aide), was fully aware o
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of the stupider journal entries you've written in some time.
Shrug. I hope you realize your judgment is not considered to be relevant.
Your switch into the passive voice makes it sound like Dems are upset because Republicans are misrepresenting facts:
They are so upset.
The left was whining about the fact that they "can't" get anything done in the Senate. Then they decided to blame the Republicans for asserting their rights as a minority coalition in the Senate. Now they are crying that the facts are being misrepresented.
That wasn't passive voice, actually.
Yes, we are upset that "the facts are being misrepresented" -- by Republicans, as you know. But everyone expects that by now.
Yes, everyone expects the Democrats to play victim despite the facts. I sure do.
What we're especially upset about is that the media keeps misrepresenting the facts.
The sad thing is that techinically speaking, no, the facts were not misrepresented, because, in fact, what the Democrats did this week DOES constitute a filibuster. As you know, a filibuster (which is not a legal term) is not "blocking a vote" (though it means that to many people today, it is not
Re: (Score:2)
If you are delaying a vote, rather than blocking, that is a filibuster. If you are simply trying to outlast your opponent, that is a filibuster. And that is what the Dems did this week.
the GOP was not trying to extend debate, the Dems were.
there is nothing wrong with calling what the Democrats did a "filibuster"
"filibuster" is not a legal term but for a long time has meant to extend debate for any sort of purpose beyond merely discussing a bill: to delay something
"Republicans objected [blogspot.com] to formal motions for a vote on Levin-Reed at least five times in just the first few hours of the all-night Senate debate."
Democrats repeatedly moved to bring debate to a close.
Republicans filibustered.
You know this.
Stop lying.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait, that's your line.
Yes, the thing started out with an attempt to vote. Then the Democrats could have said, fine, let's go home and come back tomorrow. Instead, they extended debate through the night.
You know this. Stop lying.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the thing started out with an attempt to vote. Then the Democrats could have said, fine, let's go home and come back tomorrow. Instead, they extended debate through the night.
You're an intelligent person, pudge. You know what a filibuster is. You know which party wanted to vote on the amendment and which party blocked that vote.
It's pretty sad that when the time comes to defend your chosen political party you will resort to outright lies.
Examples...
3:16 PM, Sen. Lott (R-MS) objects to moving directly to a vote on Levin-Reed [gpo.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the thing started out with an attempt to vote. Then the Democrats could have said, fine, let's go home and come back tomorrow. Instead, they extended debate through the night.
You're an intelligent person, pudge. You know what a filibuster is. You know which party wanted to vote on the amendment and which party blocked that vote.
Right, I know what a filibuster is, and it has nothing directly or necessarily to do with blocking a vote: it is a procedure that can be used to block a vote, or to do other things.
Again: that is what the traditional definition IS. I am just making the point that what was said can be technically justified on actual definitional grounds. However, I said several times, it was still wrong to use the word, because most people do not understand what it is. The former is a fact whether you agree with it or no