only two things have not been filibustered, obama's cabinet and supreme court nomination. EVERYTHING ELSE has been filibustered.
i'm by no means a master of Robert's Rules of Order, but don't you need to have at least 41% to effectively filibuster? Have the (R)'s had that, up until Brown's election?
The main point is that they have been using these power MUCH more than it ever was used in history. The democrats were guilty of it too when they were the minority under W. Bush... It's just a disturbing trend of complete bipartisan politics.
No legislation has been bipartisan, what do you expect? With their 60 vote majority, the Democrats decided to ram their agenda through without much consultation or negotiation with main stream republicans. The dems did try to peel off a moderate republican vote here and there, but I don't see how that's bipartisan.
To a certain degree I have to agree that the GOP is using the fillibuster too much. On the other hand, it is an acceptable way of making it clear that the Obama/Pelosi administration need to consider compromise and the will of the majority of voters who are disagreeing with their policies. The GOP have found themselves in the unsuual position of being a small minority in Congress, but the defenders of the majority of voters during these past 16 months or so. Without going into a lecture on the importance of a fillibuster, I have no real problem with either side employing it so long as the goal of using it is to get the other side to consider compromise. To think otherwise is to admit being as partisan as those you are slamming for being partisan (and that spells, "hypocrite").
16 months ago Obama won the election handily and for the most part the Dems have been implementing the platform he ran on. While in issues like health care reform a majority of voters didn't agree with what passed, a high percentage of those in disagreement (including me) wanted a single payer option which was a far cry from what the R's were pushing. It's laughable to claim that the GOP is representing a majority of the voters or has been in any way used the filibuster to get the Dems to consider compromise... they've basically just screamed no! at every turn while providing few alternative ideas. Besides corporatism and getting reelected/holding power, I don't really know what the Republican party stands for any more STOMP
Everything else has been an attempt to greatly increase the size of the government. Haven't we been over this?
Neither side has been good about keeping a "small" government. I think the R's want to limit the size of the government more than the D's. Why would you expect the R's to just vote in line with the D's on these things?
And why would they let something go to vote that they are fundamentally against? That is pretty ridiculous.
well I just find it funny that the republicans are still talking and negotiating on the bank regulations bill, but they don't want it to be in front of c-span.
Well, whatever they stand for, it's been pretty much in agreement with the majority of voters for since Obama became president.
this part... just... ugh... my brain!!! You realize that obama was elected. By a majority... of voters...
For the record, the Republicans aren't "filibustering"; they're voting as a bloc in opposition to bring items to a vote. I'm sorry, but if you can't get just one of Olympia Snowe's, Susan Collins', Scott Brown's or Lindsay Graham's votes, then the problem is with the legislation being brought to the floor. Those Senators are begging to reach across the aisle.
you realize that the GOP has told them if they work with opposition, they will not get gop funding in their next election and support someone else in their precinct.
I am in favor of gridlock. Anything that keeps Congress from passing more laws and spending more money is a good thing.
