Warning: main(/home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/above.php) [function.main]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/single.php on line 5
Warning: main() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/above.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/single.php on line 5
Lying In The Bed They Made
December 7th, 2007 at 01:26pm Matt Margolis
It’s really amusing to see Democrats moan and groan over “Republican efforts to block legislation.”
When Democrats were in the minority, blocking nominations and legislation, they called it standing up for the rights of the minority party, and cited the Founding Fathers in an attempt to justify their own behavior.
If they’re hot and bothered now, just wait until the next time there’s a Democrat president with a Democrat majority in the Senate (hopefully it won’t ever happen, but hypothetically speaking) and the Democrats are unable to vote on judicial nominations because they can’t break a filibuster. Will Democrats whine like little children, or will they urge their Democrat president to nominate moderate “consensus” nominees?
Entry Filed under: Congress, Democrats, Republicans, Senate
14 Comments
1. John Ryan | December 7th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
All polls show the Democrats picking up more seats in both the House and Senate in 2008http://www.gallup.com/poll/Topics.aspx
3 of the top 4 Republicans in the House have decided not to even run for re-election
The Republicans are going to have to defend 20+ seats in the Senate with scant re$ources. I expect at least 6 seats more to go to the Democrats.
In 206 the Democrats won more seats than almost anyone could have thought, certainly your own projections were not close that year
2. jayhay | December 7th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
The republicans called it ‘the tyranny of the minority’ back when they had the majority. So get off your high horse. Add to that that this minority has forced every issue to cloture votes, requiring most Senate votes to be super-majorities, distorting the historical tradition. Why the democrats haven’t made the republicans act out the filibuster they threaten on every vote, I have no idea. That’s the reality, but back to your spinning…
3. plainjane | December 7th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
The Senate does have the useful purpose of slowing down legislation. However for the sake of the democracy it is time for Democrats to require Republicans to carry out their filibuster and expect the same thing should they be in the minority. Cloture votes are for the lazy.
We need to get back to the days of Mr. Smith Goes to Washintong.
4. Eric T | December 7th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I think the energy bill’s intentions are good. Can’t they substitute the tax increase on the oil companies, with a tariff on Chavez oil or something like that?
5. CallMeTeach | December 7th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
I know what wouldn’t happen in a Democratic majority congress and presidency - the President wouldn’t just wait until Congressional recess to apoint his delegates. Speaking of Bolton, he should have never been appointed as the US Ambassador to the U.N. evident by the fact that he didn’t last. So in this case, the Dems were justified in their philabuster.
6. Eric T | December 7th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
john ryan
what you say is a sad reality. an uphill fight. The environment and atmosphere for the Republicans is not good. We know the TRUTH on issues. And what is RIGHT. But when I’m out there pushin Mike Huckabee on everyone. I get alot of the same comments from people. Here are some that are hard to debunk.
I’m lower class my class don’t get excited about tax cuts. the middle might, AMT is 100k-200k so thats not my kind of folk that I encounter thru-out the day. Here it goes. Anybody who has answers please help me with some responses
Republican? look at these gas prices, you crazy?
Republican? this war costing billions, we are borrowing money, so the rich can get tax breaks.
Republican? my wages cut in half, pension eliminated.
Winning over supporters would be alot easier, If I had some good responses.
7. Retired Spook | December 7th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
In 206 the Democrats won more seats than almost anyone could have thought
You’re letting your ignorance hang out for all to see, John. The average losses for the party in control of the WH during the mid-term elections in the second term of all 2-term Presidents going back to Eisnehower is 26 in the House and 6 in the Senate. The actual numbers in 2006 were 31 in the house, barely above the average and 6 in the Senate - right on the number. Anyone (no offense, Mark) who predicted any results substantially better than that for the GOP in 2006 was simply pissing up a waterfall. And anyone (like you) who looks at 2006 as a watershed event for the Dems is simply ignoring history.
Now you may be correct in your assessment of Dem gains in 2008, but then the Dems are pretty good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. All they have to do is slip up and tell people what they really stand for and voters will flock away from them in droves.
8. Almiranta | December 7th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Spook, thanks for doing the research on those numbers—and for the comment on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Not only were the election results of 2006 the result of historically proven patterns of boredom with the party in power, they were the natural reaction to the overwhelming media-driven attack on all that was conservative and proof of the shift from media as reporting agencies to media CREATING the news.
The Left loves to claim that the Dem gains were a ‘mandate’ for radical Left positions, when in fact most of the gains were made by Dems posturing as conservatives, out-conservativing the GOP on nearly every issue.
We sat back and speculated about the fallout when those elected as conservative Dems would be in a put-up-or-shut-up situation—do they honor those who put them in office by voting the way they campaigned, or do they show their true colors and suck up to the radical Left they truly, for the most part, represent?
The B4B archives would show lots of comments on those very points—I know, I made a lot of them.
Now we see the predictable results of the disconnect between the reality of Dem politics and the disguises they had to don to win their elections.
These guys KNOW they can’t vote the way the radicals want them to, yet they don’t have the guts to stand up to them, so they are frozen, immobilized, and impotent.
They KNOW that once they show their true Socialist colors, or at least the true Socialist colors of the radical Left that got them into office, they will lose the next time the populace has a chance to boot them out.
And they KNOW that if they vote the way they promised to, they will lose the loot promised to them by their minders.
What to do? Well, they can Harry-Ried it and strut and posture to appease the radical Left while actually doing absolutely nothing. They can talk the talk but limp out when it comes to walking the walk, and vote intelligently and hope no one notices.
And they can try to blame the Republicans for their inability to get anything accomplished. Not that they really had any plans anyway—so few of them ran FOR anything, just managing to get elected by being Not Bush.
BTW, the filibuster (check that spelling, Teach who evidently never had one…) was designed to give the minority the chance to push debate on legislative matters. It is being used that way today by the minority party.
It not only was never intended to be used to block the Constitutional demand of “advice and consent” by the Senate on appointments, its use in that manner was a violation of the Constitutionally-stated role of the Senate and a means of bypassing the voting process.
Two very different animals…..
9. Rana Quijotesca | December 7th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
So… it was justified when Republicans did it… but not when Democrats are doing it… hypocrite…
10. LiberalNitemare | December 7th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
The dems dont like playing by the rules they made. Thats hypocritical.
So what happened to Harry Reid and his cartwheels? I would have donated to Hillarys campaign fund to see that!
11. Jay Gaultieri | December 9th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Whatever happened to that “Put everything to a straight up-or-down vote” that you guys were talking about two years ago?
12. Matt Margolis | December 9th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Jay,
1. There’s a difference between judicial nominees and legislation.
2. Democrats have been less than willing to compromise on legislation — despite their promise for a new era of bipartisanship.
3. Are you implying that Republicans should just let Democrats have everything their way without compromise when Democrats won’t do the same for Republicans?
4. I think Democrats are getting a taste of their own medicine, and I’ve always said that Republicans should use the Democrats own tactics against them. Do you really believe that if Republicans gave Democrats a vote on everything they wanted that the Democrats would reciprocate? Ha.
13. plainjane | December 10th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Matt Margolis | December 9th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
1. There’s a difference between judicial nominees and legislation.
Every time I see a ridiculous statement like this from Mark or Matt, I get the feeling another one of those political indoctrinations of corporate media has taken place at the White House. Matt, can we expect another Constitutional attack by the far right? This time is it Article II, section 2, advise and consent, of the Constitution getting in the Neocons’ way?
14. Tractatus | December 10th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Whatever happened to that “Put everything to a straight up-or-down vote” that you guys were talking about two years ago?
The 2006 midterms changed everything, so now poor little wingnuts like Matt have to do a complete 180 about what they were whining about. How predictable.
Every time I see a ridiculous statement like this from Mark or Matt, I get the feeling another one of those political indoctrinations of corporate media has taken place at the White House.
No, it’s just that they’re being loyal stenographers like they’re supposed to.