No More Excuses

[Guernicaa]

ENDING THE WAR:
TIME FOR THE DEMS TO PLAY HARDBALL

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON

Taking a page from America's retailers, President Bush is getting a jump on the coming battle over Iraq war funding. On Monday, he added an additional $45.9 billion in supplemental war funding to the $150.5 billion he'd already requested, and then turned up the heat on Congress to sign off on the $196.4billion before heading home for the holidays. Only 60 more browbeating days until Christmas!

And you have to give Bush credit. Despite record-low approval ratings, he's unabashedly playing -- and winning -- the PR game on the war. By incrementally adding to his funding request, he made his ongoing plundering of our treasury to pursue his disastrous Iraq policy seem relatively modest. The headlines all focused on the $46 billion he's just added to the tab -- not the $196 billion he's really after.

And while his language about "supporting the troops," and "providing our troops with the help and support they need to get the job done" is well past its sell-by date, the Democrats have yet to reframe the funding debate. So Bush replays his patriotic greatest hits while the blood of our soldiers continues to flow -- in the process making our country not more, but less, safe.
The president was feeling so cocky he even pulled out the "s" word --"succeed" -- that had been in cold storage for a while. "Our men and women on the front lines should not be caught in the middle of partisan disagreements in Washington, D.C.," he said. "[Congress] ought to make sure our troops have what it takes to succeed." Whatever that means in Iraq these days.

The Democrats meanwhile remain divided and confounded on how to stand up to the president on Iraq. House invertebrates like Steny Hoyer, who foolishly think ducking for cover is a winning '08 strategy, are urging a cautious approach, suggesting that any hardball stop-the-war efforts will leave red state Dems vulnerable to attacks for undermining the troops.

Senate leaders, including Carl Levin, are also treading lightly. Levin's latest gambit: put Bush on the installment plan, giving him only part of the money and forcing him to come asking for more in June, after the next Congressionally mandated report from Gen. Petraeus (September redux?). Levin's plan would also aim for a complete withdrawal from Iraq within nine months -- but this would only be a goal, not a date certain requirement.

Hey, why accomplish today what you can put off until tomorrow -- or June?

And some Democrats just seem resigned to the notion that their options are limited. As Henry Waxman told Politico: "If you don't have the votes, you don't have the votes." It's what David Sirota calls the "Innocent Bystander Fable" -- the idea that since Democrats don't have the 60 votes needed to end Senate debate or the 66 votes needed to override a Bush veto, the war in Iraq is out of their hands.

But the truth is, Democrats have all the votes they need to stop the war -- if they are willing to use the power given them by the Constitution to block the supplemental funding bill unless it includes a deadline for bringing the troops home. As Norm Ornstein told me: "Whatever the White House sends to the House is constitutionally merely a suggestion." The prerogative to bring a funding bill to the floor rests entirely with the majority -- which, in case Democrats have forgotten, is theirs. As for the Senate, Democrats there would only have to find 41 votes to block the supplemental funding bill.

I'm sorry for this refresher in Congressional Power 101, but Democratic leaders seem to need it. The White House cannot force Congress to spend money. Period. The end. The imperial presidency has not gone that far. At least not yet. So Democrats, who have the public behind them, need to be unequivocal that they are simply not going to continue to fund the war unless and until the president agrees to change course and set a date certain for ending it.

They need to make it clear that they are not pulling the plug on the troops - indeed, they will be authorizing bridge funding for armored vehicles and veterans' health benefits, among other essential expenses, when they take up the annual defense appropriations bill in December. And they can make it clear that they will give the president and the Pentagon all the money they need to safely and responsibly bring the troops home.

It's a battle of wills. A test of leadership. And a contest to frame the debate in the public's mind.

The president took a preemptive shot across the bow on Monday, playing the funding-equals-troop-support card, and placing the ball squarely in Congress' court. Democrats can't afford to sit back on their heels and wait until next year to take on the president (or worse yet, have a replay of the 2007 supplemental funding fight and cave to the president's phony "before the holidays" demands).

They need to begin reframing the funding fight now -- hammering home the message that it's the president's obstinacy that is jeopardizing the well-being of our troops and the safety of our country.

This is not the time for caution and playing it safe. This is the time to force the president's hand.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/ending-the-war-time-for-_b_69923.html

[Gaffer]

You really are a liberal nutwing. Posting that crap like the huff and puff has any credibility. What's the matter, not enough casualties in the war this month for you?

[manu1959]

huffington.....omfg.....she is several sandwiches short of a picnic....

[Dilloduck]

huffington.....omfg.....she is several sandwiches short of a picnic....

A liberal Anne Coulter wannabe.

[avatar4321]

low approval rating? Bush has twice the approval of Congress. Of course they are going to approve what he asks. They arent stupid. America hates them.

[JohnDoe]

A liberal Anne Coulter wannabe. huffington was liked by repubs when she was married to her republican politician husband though? that is, until he came out of the closet and told everyone he was gay.... and she divorced him. ;)

yes she is as bright as anne coulter is, but she is no anne coulter wannabe....i don't think there is a woman in the world that is an anne coulter wannabe, or i should hope not!

:laugh2:

jd

[manu1959]

huffington was liked by repubs when she was married to her republican politician husband though? that is, until he came out of the closet and told everyone he was gay.... and she divorced him. ;)

yes she is as bright as anne coulter is, but she is no anne coulter wannabe....i don't think there is a woman in the world that is an anne coulter wannabe, or i should hope not!

:laugh2:

jd

so a liberal woman that embraces diversity divorced her gay husband......not very tollerant of her.....:laugh2:

gabby is the ann coulter of the left on this board....

[JohnDoe]

low approval rating? Bush has twice the approval of Congress. Of course they are going to approve what he asks. They arent stupid. America hates them.

there have been 52 cloture votes or filibusters by the republicans in the senate since the end of january, when the democrats took over.

the repubs have obstructed the will of the people with their minority at every chance they can get, or at least made it a daily requirement that it takes 60 votes, not a majority to get anything done....and slowing congress down with all of their historic in number, filibusters/cloture votes.

yes congress is hated, but they always have been at a lower rating than president bush's, even the republican controlled congress.

pelosi said she would give congress poor ratings herself because they hadn't stopped the war, which was the will of the people that voted the dems in, in the last election....i was surprised to hear her admit that on her rating of congress!

jd

[JohnDoe]

so a liberal woman that embraces diversity divorced her gay husband......not very tollerant of her.....:laugh2:

gabby is the ann coulter of the left on this board....



:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[5stringJeff]

If the Democrats really wanted to play hardball, they'd revoke the resolution that authorized Bush to go into Iraq in the first place. All this power of the purse stuff is really secondary.

[mrg666]

fuk off seems a decent reply to that

[manu1959]

there have been 52 cloture votes or filibusters by the republicans in the senate since the end of january, when the democrats took over.

the repubs have obstructed the will of the people with their minority at every chance they can get, or at least made it a daily requirement that it takes 60 votes, not a majority to get anything done....and slowing congress down with all of their historic in number, filibusters/cloture votes.

yes congress is hated, but they always have been at a lower rating than president bush's, even the republican controlled congress.

pelosi said she would give congress poor ratings herself because they hadn't stopped the war, which was the will of the people that voted the dems in, in the last election....i was surprised to hear her admit that on her rating of congress!

jd

what makes you think that the members of congress which are opposing the dems are not doing what their constituents wants?

[JohnDoe]

what makes you think that the members of congress which are opposing the dems are not doing what their constituents wants?
i dunno? they probably are, but that is surprising that they have filibustered more than any congress in our history has....

when they were in power they complained about the Dems wanting to filibuster just a couple of times for a couple of judges...threatened with the nuclear option, busting the filibuster to smitherines, and now that they are the minority, they've used it more than any congress in our history!!! hypocrites, to say the least!

and i do not believe the filibuster was MEANT to be abused in the manner that they have... minority was NOT MEANT to rule, the filibuster was to prevent the tyrany of the majority on crutial issues...yes, but not the tyrany of the minority, as the repubs are playing it....nothing gets passed on a majority vote, nothing! That's not right imo.

jd

[manu1959]

i dunno? they probably are, but that is surprising that they have filibustered more than any congress in our history has....

when they were in power they complained about the Dems wanting to filibuster just a couple of times for a couple of judges...threatened with the nuclear option, busting the filibuster to smitherines, and now that they are the minority, they've used it more than any congress in our history!!! hypocrites, to say the least!

and i do not believe the filibuster was MEANT to be abused in the manner that they have... minority was NOT MEANT to rule, the filibuster was to prevent the tyrany of the majority on crutial issues...yes, but not the tyrany of the minority, as the repubs are playing it....nothing gets passed on a majority vote, nothing! That's not right imo.

jd

are they not allowed to object to the dems agenda?....

politicians by definition are hypocrites.....

it would appear the filabuster is being used to prevent the tyrany of the majority rule......

it is a time of war and a dificult time in american history ....i think it should take more than a simple majority to change directions....

[JohnDoe]

are they not allowed to object to the dems agenda?....

politicians by definition are hypocrites.....

it would appear the filabuster is being used to prevent the tyrany of the majority rule......

it is a time of war and a dificult time in american history ....i think it should take more than a simple majority to change directions....I disagree.

When EVERY SINGLE BILL that is brought up in the Senate, needs 60 votes to pass it because of the minority pulling a filibuster, then THAT IS OBSTRUCTIONISM and it goes against what our founding father's intended.

If the minority used the filibuster to object to an imprtant issue, which is the PURPOSE OF IT, then I would agree with you, but nothing can get passed in the Senate now with a majority vote, sooooooooo, this is the minority SHOVING THEIR WILL down the majority's throat imo.

jd

[gabosaurus]

I want the war to continue right through the 2008 general election. A referendum on Iraq is bad news for GOP candidates. Because the blood is on their hands.

[Gaffer]

I want the war to continue right through the 2008 general election. A referendum on Iraq is bad news for GOP candidates. Because the blood is on their hands.

Note to Gaby; we are winning. The surge is working. The dems have hung their hat on a dead horse.

As for the filibusters. They should be done as they were intended. The filibuster people need to spend the actual time talking about the issue they are against. No rest, no breaks. No coming back to it after recess. It goes until one side or the other gives in. watch the old movie "Mr Smith goes to Washington" that's what a filibuster is all about.

[5stringJeff]

I want the war to continue right through the 2008 general election. A referendum on Iraq is bad news for GOP candidates. Because the blood is on their hands.

And THAT is exactly why the Democrats won't revoke the Iraq War resolution: they are playing politics with the war.

[PostmodernProphet]

If the minority used the filibuster to object to an imprtant issue, which is the PURPOSE OF IT, then I would agree with you, but nothing can get passed in the Senate now with a majority vote, sooooooooo, this is the minority SHOVING THEIR WILL down the majority's throat imo.

lol....so when the Dems used the filibuster before 2006 it was a good thing, but when the Repubs used the filibuster after 2006 it was shoving their will around....ok, gotcha.......

[darin]

Democrats pander to fools who believe "Iraq" is the war on terror. Removing our troops from Iraq won't end ANYTHING; it'll cause MORE death, destruction, and violence. We don't get to decide when to stop fighting.

[JohnDoe]

lol....so when the Dems used the filibuster before 2006 it was a good thing, but when the Repubs used the filibuster after 2006 it was shoving their will around....ok, gotcha.......
NO, pmp, you are twisting and turning and spinning right now....

The filibuster is for the use of the minority on critical issues, to slow the pace, and to fully discuss with unlimited debate, before the vote goes to the floor.

Filibustering EVERY SINGLE BILL ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, is obstructionism, and an abuse of the filibuster... There IS A DIFFERENCE, but go ahead and make your excuses and support the Republican Hypocrites in office on this...that's your choice!!! :cheers2:

jd

[JohnDoe]

Democrats pander to fools who believe "Iraq" is the war on terror. Removing our troops from Iraq won't end ANYTHING; it'll cause MORE death, destruction, and violence. We don't get to decide when to stop fighting.I think I differ with you on this....

We DO GET to decide when to start fighting and when to stop fighting...we can do this by electing people that support our views.

HOWEVER, there are consequences to those type of decisions that we will have to live with...and they could be more negative than positive...or visa versa.

jd

[Immanuel]

the repubs have obstructed the will of the people

That statement just seems strange to me.

What makes us think that the Republicans have obstructed the will of the people? Not that I disagree with you JD, but it seems funny to state it in such a way. Maybe, the Republicans were actually on the side of the people and it was the Democrats that were presenting things that the people did not want.

Just because the majority of one party, be it socialistic Democrats or theocratic Republicans try to force a bill through Congress does not mean that the people want it.

I realize I didn't see it that way five years ago, but maybe I've had an Epiphany. ;)

Immie

Whoops, sorry Manu1959 I just read further down and see that you pointed this out already.

[theHawk]

I disagree.

When EVERY SINGLE BILL that is brought up in the Senate, needs 60 votes to pass it because of the minority pulling a filibuster, then THAT IS OBSTRUCTIONISM and it goes against what our founding father's intended.

If the minority used the filibuster to object to an imprtant issue, which is the PURPOSE OF IT, then I would agree with you, but nothing can get passed in the Senate now with a majority vote, sooooooooo, this is the minority SHOVING THEIR WILL down the majority's throat imo.

jd


So what was it when the Democrats fillibustered the Republican Congress? :laugh2:

[hjmick]

So what was it when the Democrats fillibustered the Republican Congress? :laugh2:

Oh...well...that's different. Everyone knows that the Democrats only do what the people want them to do.

[BoogyMan]

j/d after having nearly the same environment when the republicans were in power in congress you truly need to stop the sniveling and get over it. The hypocrisy of such a view is maddening.

As for the HuffPo article, I find it interesting that as more and more positive reports are coming out of Iraq and some real progress is being shown, that the left is becoming more and more desperate to get us out of the country. Why is that? Could it be that success in Iraq spells doom for the left?

They sure have built their platform on failure. Are they determined to switch off the light, albeit dim, that is now trying to show up at the end of the tunnel?

[gabosaurus]

"Winning" what? We are not "winning" anything except the race to have more Americans dead and buried. We are accomplishing nothing. That is what the American people see.
"Oh look Margaret. Another American kid got his head blown off. Don't think we should vote for the party responsible for this again."

[manu1959]

I think I differ with you on this....

We DO GET to decide when to start fighting and when to stop fighting...we can do this by electing people that support our views.

HOWEVER, there are consequences to those type of decisions that we will have to live with...and they could be more negative than positive...or visa versa.

jd

i try .... but i keep getting boxer pelosi and feinstein

[Immanuel]

"Oh look Margaret. Another American kid got his head blown off. Don't think we should vote for the party responsible for this again."

I agree, but that means both parties. Both parties are responsible for this war. The Democrats supported it and when you listen to them, you don't hear them saying that they will do anything about it if they win. This may be "Bush's War" but the Dems have signed on to it.

Immie

[PostmodernProphet]

I want the war to continue right through the 2008 general election. A referendum on Iraq is bad news for GOP candidates. Because the blood is on their hands.


and


We are not "winning" anything except the race to have more Americans dead and buried.

if you honestly hold both views, gab, that leaves you in a very awkward position......

[JohnDoe]

I agree, but that means both parties. Both parties are responsible for this war. The Democrats supported it and when you listen to them, you don't hear them saying that they will do anything about it if they win. This may be "Bush's War" but the Dems have signed on to it.

Immie
I honestly believe at the time of the of the Iraq resolution, the senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle could NOT have possibly known how Prsident Bush would have handled this....he could have used the resolution as he TOLD congress he would right before their vote, to diplomatically solve the issues with Iraq and get UN support....(showing the big stick, without having to use it). He told Congress in his speach to them that he HAD NOT MADE UP HIS MIND on whther we had to go to war against Iraq or not and that he wanted to use diplomatic measures, only later for all of us to find out he had PLANS ALL ALONG to go to war with Iraq from the moment he took office, even before 9/11....there was a push for it from his advisors.


As far as now, there is nothing the Democrats can do, because of the slim majority in the Senate and the 60 votes it takes to pass anything, without the support of the Republicans in office.

It has been said that they can cut off spending, but this IS NOT the case, as I had thought....they can't cut off spending WITHOUT having 60 votes supporting such in the Senate, because the Republicans will fillibuster it, which means they need a handful of republicans to support the withdraw.

What irks me is that Democrats are using the War in Iraq to pander for votes, saying they will end it and bring the troops home right away, when they KNOW damn well that they can't, for a number of reasons...not just because of the lack of 60 votes, though that is part of it.

Pulling out is NOT going to be an easy task with all of the havok going on over there, and because there are alot more factions involved now....the Saudi's and Iranians and the Turkish all in the picture now. This is not the same war that began in 2003, it is much more complicated and we better have a damn good plan on what we do next, how quickly or slowly we do it, and our best informed guess on what will happen, when all is said and done imo.

jd

[Immanuel]

I honestly believe at the time of the of the Iraq resolution, the senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle could NOT have possibly known how Prsident Bush would have handled this....he could have used the resolution as he TOLD congress he would right before their vote, to diplomatically solve the issues with Iraq and get UN support....(showing the big stick, without having to use it). He told Congress in his speach to them that he HAD NOT MADE UP HIS MIND on whther we had to go to war against Iraq or not and that he wanted to use diplomatic measures, only later for all of us to find out he had PLANS ALL ALONG to go to war with Iraq from the moment he took office, even before 9/11....there was a push for it from his advisors.


As far as now, there is nothing the Democrats can do, because of the slim majority in the Senate and the 60 votes it takes to pass anything, without the support of the Republicans in office.

It has been said that they can cut off spending, but this IS NOT the case, as I had thought....they can't cut off spending WITHOUT having 60 votes supporting such in the Senate, because the Republicans will fillibuster it, which means they need a handful of republicans to support the withdraw.

What irks me is that Democrats are using the War in Iraq to pander for votes, saying they will end it and bring the troops home right away, when they KNOW damn well that they can't, for a number of reasons...not just because of the lack of 60 votes, though that is part of it.

Pulling out is NOT going to be an easy task with all of the havok going on over there, and because there are alot more factions involved now....the Saudi's and Iranians and the Turkish all in the picture now. This is not the same war that began in 2003, it is much more complicated and we better have a damn good plan on what we do next, how quickly or slowly we do it, and our best informed guess on what will happen, when all is said and done imo.

jd

What gives? I thought the title of this thread was, "No More Excuses" and all I see here is excuses. :laugh2:

One excuse after another from BOTH parties.

How long will this keep up?

Immie

[JohnDoe]

What gives? I thought the title of this thread was, "No More Excuses" and all I see here is excuses. :laugh2:

One excuse after another from BOTH parties.

How long will this keep up?

Immie

I want these troops home and safe more than anyone on this board, but I also know that it will not be just an easy withdraw now, we have long past that point, imho...but the Democrats, some of them, are still promoting this idea with their constituants, and I just don't see it as simple as they are promoting.

I do not see the Administration or Military, with any kind of thought out plan on how to handle this either.

jd

[BoogyMan]

"Winning" what? We are not "winning" anything except the race to have more Americans dead and buried. We are accomplishing nothing. That is what the American people see.
"Oh look Margaret. Another American kid got his head blown off. Don't think we should vote for the party responsible for this again."

Sounds like someone needs to hangout at Democratic Underground a little less and spend MORE time reading some real news.

[Immanuel]

I want these troops home and safe more than anyone on this board,

That I doubt. Not that you don't want them home, but that you want them home more than anyone on this board.


but I also know that it will not be just an easy withdraw now, we have long past that point, imho...but the Democrats, some of them, are still promoting this idea with their constituants, and I just don't see it as simple as they are promoting.

One or two is nothing. But, it really means nothing when you get to the brass tacks of the matter. We're in Iraq to stay. Hell will freeze over and Americans will still be in Iraq.


I do not see the Administration or Military, with any kind of thought out plan on how to handle this either.

Did you see where I blamed BOTH parties? {sarcasm}The surge baby... the surge. We'll just keep throwing more men, women and dollars at them until we drown them out. Get with the plan, jd! {sarcasm off}

Immie

[darin]

I think I differ with you on this....

We DO GET to decide when to start fighting and when to stop fighting...we can do this by electing people that support our views.

HOWEVER, there are consequences to those type of decisions that we will have to live with...and they could be more negative than positive...or visa versa.

jd

Hey honey - when we stop fighting, we all die. You might as well start trying on burkas. Our views are survival. islamic terrorists want to kill us until we are dead. Why is that hard to understand?

[JohnDoe]

Hey honey - when we stop fighting, we all die. You might as well start trying on burkas. Our views are survival. islamic terrorists want to kill us until we are dead. Why is that hard to understand?



This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—.

FDR's first inaugeral address.

I will NOT ever be wearing a Burka and there is absolutely no fear of this EVER happening to me. Ye of so little faith, in your countrymen!

you are making a mountain out of a molehill Darin, fear mongering in my humble opinion. How many Islamic terrorists do you actually believe want to kill us? Do you believe we could not defend our country against them if they ever "came to get us?"

I know we face some serious issues out there, but small compared to the World wars and certainly small compared to the Cold War. We have the fortitude and ammunition to blow up the entire world 2000 times over if anyone tried to take over our country and force me to wear a Burka, we would defend ourselves, and quite well, I am certain.

Oil, is why the middle east is important to us, just say it like it is... No need to worry about me having to wear a Burka is how I see it Darin, that will not ever happen. But, having a secure middle east helps our economy, and keeps us running, as a country. THIS is what I believe we are fighting for over there....and it has nothing to do with Islamists wanting to kill us, though I am certain there are many that do want to... just secure our borders and don't send them a courtesy limosine airplane to pick them up and deliever them here, and we will be fine imo.

We should be working as fast as we can for alternative fuels to run the country on and realize that the oil in the middle east, IS NOT OURS, but that of our enemies or future enemies.... we can eventually beat them at their game imo, if we walk away from all middle eastern oil....there is still canadian oil and mexican oil and yes, venezuelan oil, and our own oil, if it comes down to it, to use with these newer energy alternatives that we could develop.

jd

[darin]

FDR's first inaugeral address.

I will NOT ever be wearing a Burka and there is absolutely no fear of this EVER happening to me. Ye of so little faith, in your countrymen!

you are making a mountain out of a molehill Darin, fear mongering in my humble opinion. How many Islamic terrorists do you actually believe want to kill us? Do you believe we could not defend our country against them if they ever "came to get us?"

I know we face some serious issues out there, but small compared to the World wars and certainly small compared to the Cold War. We have the fortitude and ammunition to blow up the entire world 2000 times over if anyone tried to take over our country and force me to wear a Burka, we would defend ourselves, and quite well, I am certain.

Oil, is why the middle east is important to us, just say it like it is... No need to worry about me having to wear a Burka is how I see it Darin, that will not ever happen. But, having a secure middle east helps our economy, and keeps us running, as a country. THIS is what I believe we are fighting for over there....and it has nothing to do with Islamists wanting to kill us, though I am certain there are many that do want to... just secure our borders and don't send them a courtesy limosine airplane to pick them up and deliever them here, and we will be fine imo.

We should be working as fast as we can for alternative fuels to run the country on and realize that the oil in the middle east, IS NOT OURS, but that of our enemies or future enemies.... we can eventually beat them at their game imo, if we walk away from all middle eastern oil....there is still canadian oil and mexican oil and yes, venezuelan oil, and our own oil, if it comes down to it, to use with these newer energy alternatives that we could develop.

jd


If we 'stop fighting' they will KILL YOU, your Family, and friends. They will attack and attack and attack. Look what 'not fighting' because of Clinton did to our country later?

You're absolutely naive.

[avatar4321]

there have been 52 cloture votes or filibusters by the republicans in the senate since the end of january, when the democrats took over.

the repubs have obstructed the will of the people with their minority at every chance they can get, or at least made it a daily requirement that it takes 60 votes, not a majority to get anything done....and slowing congress down with all of their historic in number, filibusters/cloture votes.

yes congress is hated, but they always have been at a lower rating than president bush's, even the republican controlled congress.

pelosi said she would give congress poor ratings herself because they hadn't stopped the war, which was the will of the people that voted the dems in, in the last election....i was surprised to hear her admit that on her rating of congress!

jd

Forgive me if i dont sypathize. Paybacks a bitch isnt it?

[avatar4321]

I disagree.

When EVERY SINGLE BILL that is brought up in the Senate, needs 60 votes to pass it because of the minority pulling a filibuster, then THAT IS OBSTRUCTIONISM and it goes against what our founding father's intended.

If the minority used the filibuster to object to an imprtant issue, which is the PURPOSE OF IT, then I would agree with you, but nothing can get passed in the Senate now with a majority vote, sooooooooo, this is the minority SHOVING THEIR WILL down the majority's throat imo.

jd

I am sorry but i just have a hard time watching any liberal whine about the filibuster and obstructing legislation. its all you guys have done the past 12 years. and now you are shocked when someone actually wants to filibuster you back? Turn about is fair play.

Who was it that started illegally filibustering judicial nominations again?

[JohnDoe]

I am sorry but i just have a hard time watching any liberal whine about the filibuster and obstructing legislation. its all you guys have done the past 12 years. and now you are shocked when someone actually wants to filibuster you back? Turn about is fair play.

Who was it that started illegally filibustering judicial nominations again?you are ill informed.

NO SENATE IN OUR HISTORY

has filibustered in the senate more than THIS REPUBLICAN minority.


the democrats tried to fillibuster a supreme court judge or 2, whoop dee do!


THAT WAS NOT obstructing, that was doing their job, bring forward a very controversial issue, to unlimited debate.

a handful at most of filibusters in 6 years by the democrats is not an abuse of the system, HOWEVER, 52 FILLIBUSTERS, in 9 months time by the republican minority, is most certainly an abuse of the filibuster, there is no denying such imo, and certainly wrong.

the republicans cried like a BABY, bitched and moaned from here to high heaven about 1-4 filibuster for an SC justice appt, as abuse of power by the dems.... hypocrites Avatar, but you have your blinders on, please take them off. Some things are right and some things are wrong, in this case the repubs are wrong....this does not mean that you can't continue to support them Av, just that they have done something that is wrong, and even you, should admit to such, regardless of your overall support continuing imho.

jd

[avatar4321]

you are ill informed.

NO SENATE IN OUR HISTORY

has filibustered in the senate more than THIS REPUBLICAN minority.


the democrats tried to fillibuster a supreme court judge or 2, whoop dee do!


THAT WAS NOT obstructing, that was doing their job, bring forward a very controversial issue, to unlimited debate.

a handful at most of filibusters in 6 years by the democrats is not an abuse of the system, HOWEVER, 52 FILLIBUSTERS, in 9 months time by the republican minority, is most certainly an abuse of the filibuster, there is no denying such imo, and certainly wrong.

the republicans cried like a BABY, bitched and moaned from here to high heaven about 1-4 filibuster for an SC justice appt, as abuse of power by the dems.... hypocrites Avatar, but you have your blinders on, please take them off. Some things are right and some things are wrong, in this case the repubs are wrong....this does not mean that you can't continue to support them Av, just that they have done something that is wrong, and even you, should admit to such, regardless of your overall support continuing imho.

jd

trying to rewrite history? they were filibusting every possible thing they could. They were filibusting ANY federal court nominee they didnt like. Something that was never done in the history of this republic. The only thing they didnt filibuster is the stuff they wanted.