Minnesota senators no friends of filibuster

Full story: TwinCities.com

Changing laws is difficult enough. Changing how laws are made? Those are fightin' words.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 9 of9
UGH

Amman, Jordan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 25, 2011
 

Judged:

5

3

2

This is a raw power grab, pure and simple. The dems used the threat of a filibuster hundreds of times against GW Bush. And when there was talk of changing the filibuster back then, they declared that it was a matter of saving the democratic process. Now that their radical agenda has been rejected by the American people, they are trying to change the rules to make it easier for them to continue to ram things through. Caveat emptor! When the GOP makes big gains in the Senate in the next two election cycles, the dems will rue the day that they succumbed to the loony left for short-term political expediency.
Bart Black

Carrollton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 25, 2011
 

Judged:

2

How are things in the Arabic Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan today? Tell me all about towels; not democracy.
Tenured Marxist

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 25, 2011
 

Judged:

4

4

1

Klobuchuckles was shocked to learn a fillibuster is not a Dairy Queen treat.
John

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jan 25, 2011
 
Funny how they're "not friends of the filibuster" when they have the majority, but honor it's history and intent when they're in the minority. They think 50.1% of the country should be able to run over the other 49.9% of the country. There's a reason the minority is given powers in the senate. Primarily so a rogue marjority in congress cannot run against the will of the people, like the past congress did.

Just a note to Amy and Al - you will be in the minority in two years. Think hard about your heavy-handed power grab. It may come back to bite you big time in two years. Not that you lost the election, you want to change the rules. I guess that's "fair" to the ends-justify-the-means types.

“Free and Fair Elections”

Since: Jan 09

Zumbrota, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jan 25, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

There is no comparison to the Democratic use of the filibuster as compared to Republican use of the same tool in the past two years. Republicans required that everything pass over the 60 vote threshold, while Democrats used the filibuster far less often. It is likely that Republicans will be in control of the Senate in two years, so a vote for filibuster reform will likely work or not work for both sides. If both sides are dead set on using this power to delay any legislation, then it is time to change the Senate rule.
Kelly

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jan 25, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

Flatblade wrote:
There is no comparison to the Democratic use of the filibuster as compared to Republican use of the same tool in the past two years. Republicans required that everything pass over the 60 vote threshold, while Democrats used the filibuster far less often. It is likely that Republicans will be in control of the Senate in two years, so a vote for filibuster reform will likely work or not work for both sides. If both sides are dead set on using this power to delay any legislation, then it is time to change the Senate rule.
Did Keith Overbite give you this 'fact'. God.
Don

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jan 25, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Flatblade wrote:
There is no comparison to the Democratic use of the filibuster as compared to Republican use of the same tool in the past two years. Republicans required that everything pass over the 60 vote threshold, while Democrats used the filibuster far less often. It is likely that Republicans will be in control of the Senate in two years, so a vote for filibuster reform will likely work or not work for both sides. If both sides are dead set on using this power to delay any legislation, then it is time to change the Senate rule.
Amazing, considering the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate until a year ago. Actually, they have more now with Scott Brown and the other two fake Republicans from Maine. And just a little history lesson for you - it's SUPPOSED TO BE DIFFICULT TO GET LEGISLATION THROUGH CONGRESS.

“Free and Fair Elections”

Since: Jan 09

Zumbrota, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jan 25, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Don wrote:
<quoted text>Amazing, considering the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate until a year ago. Actually, they have more now with Scott Brown and the other two fake Republicans from Maine. And just a little history lesson for you - it's SUPPOSED TO BE DIFFICULT TO GET LEGISLATION THROUGH CONGRESS.
Let's see, the Democrats had 60 votes from the time Franken was sworn in (July 2009 IIRC) until Teddy Kennedy died (August 2009) and Kennedy was hospitalized for most of the time that there were 60 nominal Democratic senators. Also, the Senate was in summer recess for part of that time, so basically there was no real time when the Democrats had 60 senators. I agree that it is supposed to be difficult to get laws through Congress, but the intent isn't to have a minority be able to block everything, and have de facto veto power. I have said before that it is likely that the Republicans will have the majority as soon as January 2013, and the same rules should apply if and when they have a majority.
Mark Green

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jan 25, 2011
 
Reality Bites: The GOP Majority Hits the Ground... Stumbling

It's only been three weeks but House Republicans are already losing momentum on health care, deficits, civility, guns, and Issa's investigations. Was Nov. 2 their high point?

Republicans certainly earned bragging rights when they captured 53% of the national vote and netted 63 seats in the House in the mid-term elections. But now, rather abruptly, if Majority Leader Eric Cantor's appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday is any indication, the new GOP House majority is on the defensive.

What went wrong? Two things: President Obama raised his level of his performance (see John Heilemann's excellent piece in New York magazine) and the GOP's patriotic rhetoric collided with a thick stone wall called reality. It turns out that they have no program other than recycled platitudes - a 19th century vision in a 21st century economy. The confluence of early miscues are adding up:

Deficits. When the GOP in the Lame Duck session had to choose between rewarding its big donors with continued tax breaks and delivering on deficit reduction, we know who won. Other than shocked Tea Partiers who didn't realize that they weren't supposed to take WashingtonSpeak against deficits seriously, party support for adding $800 billion to the deficit over a decade was, after all, pretty consistent with the party's history... and the clarifying explanation of Nixon's attorney general, "watch what we say, not what we do."

Reagan doubled the federal debt and Bush 43 doubled it again. The federal budget deficit of $1.3 trillion in FY 2010 [corrected] was inherited by Obama from Bush -- and essential to stop our economic slide into depression. GOP talking points that blame Obama for job losses and deficits in his first two years not too convincingly overlook what was locked into place when he took his oath. Given their two off-the-books wars and a prescription drug plan, no wonder Vice President Cheney said that "deficits don't matter" as early as 2001, according to interviews with Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill in The Price of Loyalty.

This year's GOP deficit unseriousness was their early failure to cut $100 billion from the budget in the first year, which they now say really meant only $60 billion. Then on Sunday came Cantor's promise to begin the cutting with $100 million (that's million) from the presidential campaign finance program -- which is an ideological assault posing as deficit reduction (and which accounts for all of .001 percent of the shortfall in any event). Also, reversing decades of counter-cyclical policy that increases federal spending to get out of recessions is extreme, not mainstream.

Then wait till the public gets to focus on supply-sider Paul Ryan's plans to privatize and voucherize Social Security and Medicare on the free market. Didn't we do that for a century-and-a-half before the New Deal?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 9 of9
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Norm Coleman Discussions

Search the Norm Coleman Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Panel Slams Banks Over Credit Practices (Mar '07) Mar 26 Jenna 10
Credit Card Execs Defend Rate Policies (Dec '07) Mar 26 Blondie 24
Former Senate leader takes to Twitter to blast ... Jan '14 you hear about watergate 6
Minn.'s Franken hardly a GOP target for defeat (Jun '13) Jun '13 See the Light 2
The IRS screwed up. No political group should ... (May '13) May '13 BandMaster 8
Top GOP Donors Are Launching A Campaign To Make... (Apr '13) Apr '13 eJohn 3
New conservative lobbying push for gay marriage (Apr '13) Apr '13 snyper 12
•••
•••
•••
•••